Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

[ricmat]

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?

I’ve asked this before (but it was probably on another thread). If life is so common, then why is ALL life on earth based on the same DNA? Why aren’t there life forms right here on earth which have these different chemical makeups that you believe exist?

It seems that in the deck of cards analogy, that for earthly life there is exactly one combination that works to bring about life.

 

[buffalo]

Same result

But a more rigorous process.

 

[chessmane4e5]

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

No but I find it impossible to write down in some “random” order all 52 cards. Then to shuffle the deck and see if that order matches.

Or to put it another way. What are the chances of shuffling a deck and having all the cards be in order?

Or that any two shuffles would produce the same order?

Need I continue? Those events will never happen, so Borel’s Law applies.

 

[tjm190]

I’ve asked this before (but it was probably on another thread). If life is so common, then why is ALL life on earth based on the same DNA? Why aren’t there life forms right here on earth which have these different chemical makeups that you believe exist?

It seems that in the deck of cards analogy, that for earthly life there is exactly one combination that works to bring about life.

maybe they did for a time- but one would have been less suited to survive than others and would have been eliminated. Plus, remember that when life pops up it tends to go around eating the chemical compounds that it’s made up of, making it harder for life to popup again.

 

[ricmat]

maybe they did for a time- but one would have been less suited to survive than others and would have been eliminated. Plus, remember that when life pops up it tends to go around eating the chemical compounds that it’s made up of, making it harder for life to popup again.

So are you saying that you’ve discovered fossils of life forms which were not based on DNA? Isn’t that contrary to current evolutionary thinking?

Seriously, you know that your response above is inadequate to answer the question.

 

[tjm190]

So are you saying that you’ve discovered fossils of life forms which were not based on DNA? Isn’t that contrary to current evolutionary thinking?

Seriously, you know that your response above is inadequate to answer the question.

You asked why we don’t have other types of life forms running around- I told you that it’s quite possible that life originated in multiple places- but even if that happened, not all of them survived long. You can’t do a DNA test on a microscopic fossil, save very very rare conditions.

 

[chessmane4e5]

So are you saying that you’ve discovered fossils of life forms which were not based on DNA? Isn’t that contrary to current evolutionary thinking?

Seriously, you know that your response above is inadequate to answer the question.

His response is based on science, I mean make up a theory, if it is wrong discard it or revise it

 

[tjm190]

No but I find it impossible to write down in some “random” order all 52 cards. Then to shuffle the deck and see if that order matches.

Or to put it another way. What are the chances of shuffling a deck and having all the cards be in order?

Or that any two shuffles would produce the same order?

Need I continue? Those events will never happen, so Borel’s Law applies.

Never? How so? You’re telling me if I had a computer shuffling one million decks of cards per second it would never see a repeat? What if it could do 10^500 per second?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Never? How so? You’re telling me if I had a computer shuffling one million decks of cards per second it would never see a repeat?

DO the math

52! = 8.06581752 × 10^67

60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 365 days = 3.1536 x 10^7

So divide these two gives 2.557654 x 10^60 years
This is how many years it would take to generate ever possible combination.

The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is between 13.5 and 14 billion years old. That is 14.5 x 10^9.

So it would take longer than the beginning of time to accomplish this…

(I may have made a mistake, I am sure someone will check my math)

 

[tjm190]

DO the math

52! = 8.06581752 × 10^67

60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 365 days = 3.1536 x 10^7

So divide these two gives 2.557654 x 10^60 years
This is how many years it would take to generate ever possible combination.

The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is between 13.5 and 14 billion years old. That is 14.5 x 10^9.

So it would take longer than the beginning of time to accomplish this…

(I may have made a mistake, I am sure someone will check my math)

And what if there 10^60 such computers? Never means completely impossible, regardless of the situation does it not?
And I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that the odds of life occurring as unlikely as has been claimed.

 

[ricmat]

Never? How so? You’re telling me if I had a computer shuffling one million decks of cards per second it would never see a repeat? What if it could do 10^500 per second?

10^500 is a large number. Too large to represent what the universe could do randomly. See the probabilistic resources of the universe below.

Signature in the Cell goes into this.

There are various calculations spread throughout the book. On page 213 is the following (my paraphrasing):

"Assuming that a minimally complex cell needs at least 210 proteins of, on average 150 amino acids and that the probability of producing just one such protein is 10 raised to the 14th power as calculated above, then the probability of a pre-biotic soup producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell is …10 raised to the 41,000th power.

This number is close to an estimate done by Fred Hoyle who estimated the chances of a one-celled organism coming about by chance at 10 raised to the 40,000th power."

The number above needs to be compared to the total “probabilistic resources” of the universe, which is calculated as 10 raised to the 139th power. (on page 216)."

These probabilistic resources assume the following:

10^80 elementary particles in the universe.
Planck time (the fastest that anything can interact with anything else, limited by the speed of light) - 10^43 events per second.
Time since the big bang - 10^16 seconds.
If you multiply these together you get the total number of “interactions” that can have taken place since the big bang - 10^139.

The use of all of the probabilistic resources of the universe assume the “best possible case” for the utilization of matter - it assumes that everything in creation is part of the “pre-biotic” soup. This of course is not realistic since most of the matter is contained in stars (or perhaps even in dark matter). So it actually biases the calculation in you favor.

If both the chance of the one-celled organism and the probabilistic resources were both e.g. 10^139, then you could say there’s a 50/50 chance of it happening strictly by chance. But the bottom line is you’re comparing 10^40,000 to 10^139 so it’s not even close.

Note: I’ve probably not done the above discussion justice. But you can always read the book yourself.

 

[buffalo]

And what if there 10^60 such computers? Never means completely impossible, regardless of the situation does it not?
And I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that the odds of life occurring as unlikely as has been claimed.

Do you not even see the road you are on?

 

[tjm190]

So he successfully proved that it is extremely unlikely for any given cell to form naturally. But nobody is claiming that one particular cell is likely to arise, but rather that ANY cell was likely to arise- now we just need to find out how many ‘given cells’ there are. I’d wager a near infinite number. Of course, not all of them have a good chance to pop up on Earth. So to show that we’d need a list- every possible organization of chemical compounds that fits the descriptor ‘life’ and the odds of each one coming about on Earth. We’d have an inhumanely long list of low probabilities.

 

[ricmat]

So he successfully proved that it is extremely unlikely for any given cell to form naturally. But nobody is claiming that one particular cell is likely to arise, but rather that ANY cell was likely to arise- now we just need to find out how many ‘given cells’ there are. I’d wager a near infinite number. Of course, not all of them have a good chance to pop up on Earth. So to show that we’d need a list- every possible organization of chemical compounds that fits the descriptor ‘life’ and the odds of each one coming about on Earth. We’d have an inhumanely long list of low probabilities.

I’m not sure if your post above was responding to me or another poster, but we are aware of no other forms of life other than those based on DNA.

How are you going to come up with a near infinite number of life forms when there are only 10^80 particles in the universe?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

OK, here’s the point I think we missing in this conversation:

Consider the following scenario: A man walks on water, and 10,000 people witness it, none of whom are insane. There is indisputable proof it was not an optical illusion.

Ought science investigate the cause? Yes or no?

I would say yes. Perhaps we will discover a scientific mechanism that was at work. Will the scientific explanation make the action any less miraculous? Of course not. (Miracles are *not *violations in the universal laws of nature – anyone who says such a thing clearly hasn’t taken logic).

So, in the case of the existence of DNA, we have an infinitesimally unlikely event. Perhaps it is overly hasty for people to claim that God did it, but certainly it is not overly hasty for us to inquire scientifically after the cause, whatever it may be? Why do scientists not want this question to be asked?

Of course, as soon as we ask the question, people will jump to conclusions. It makes for headlines, if nothing else. But the fact that people jump to conclusions ought not scare off scientists from doing their job.

If God created the universe, of course, then God need not have “interfered” to make DNA come to be. DNA would have unfolded, from the determination of elements from the beginning of time. Thus, there would exist a scientific explanation for the event, just as there would exist a scientific explanation (whether or not we could manage to find it) for a person who walked on water.

In essence, then, the religious question is entirely divorced from the scientific question. The scientist should seek for a scientific explanation. The religious question is this: how unlikely was this event? Most people consider the occurrence of unlikely events some measure of evidence for supernatural realities. Perhaps they are wrong to think so – if they are, please tell me why.

 

[Leela]

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

Almost impossible is another way to say it.

I was playing poker yesterday and was dealt a hand that only has a probability of occurring of 1 in 2.6 million. Therefore, I must not have actually been dealt that hand??

As it turns out, the probability of getting dealt any particular set of five cards is one in 2.6 million. But does it make any sense to ask AFTER you’re already holding the cards to ask, what is the probability of getting these particular cards? Everything that ever happens is extremely unlikely to happen, but such probabilities calculated after the fact are meaningless.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Everything that ever happens is extremely unlikely to happen, but such probabilities calculated after the fact are meaningless.

We don’t think probabilities calculated after the fact are meaningless in court cases.

I think you’re subscribing to the base rate fallacy, but I could be wrong. It is true that the likelihood of intelligent life, given our experience, is 1:1. But the base rate priors of such an event are infinitesimally small. I don’t know how small, and I’m not going to throw around numbers haphazardly. I’m just saying that it’s worth being investigated by scientists, as opposed to saying “Oh, it’s just random!”

 

[chessmane4e5]

I was playing poker yesterday and was dealt a hand that only has a probability of occurring of 1 in 2.6 million. Therefore, I must not have actually been dealt that hand??

As it turns out, the probability of getting dealt any particular set of five cards is one in 2.6 million. But does it make any sense to ask AFTER you’re already holding the cards to ask, what is the probability of getting these particular cards? Everything that ever happens is extremely unlikely to happen, but such probabilities calculated after the fact are meaningless.

Just curious, but what hand were you dealt?

I do not argue your point, that after the fact, probabilities can not be used to then say the event didn’t happen. It is possible that life started the way we think (actually we still do not know) it did.

All we are saying is that it is highly unlikely the first life appeared by random chance. I mean, in your card game, if you were dealt a royal flush and the next hand (or even that same night) a hand with 4 aces, your friends would most likely accuse you of cheating.

The funny thing is, math has facts, science just has theories. Math is needed for science to work

 

[ricmat]

I was playing poker yesterday and was dealt a hand that only has a probability of occurring of 1 in 2.6 million. Therefore, I must not have actually been dealt that hand??

As it turns out, the probability of getting dealt any particular set of five cards is one in 2.6 million. But does it make any sense to ask AFTER you’re already holding the cards to ask, what is the probability of getting these particular cards? Everything that ever happens is extremely unlikely to happen, but such probabilities calculated after the fact are meaningless.

Yes it is meaningful to ask after the fact what the chances were. If you were to win the lottery, after the fact people would say “how nice.” If you win the lottery five times in a row, after the fact, people would suspect that chance was somehow not a factor but that some sort of “guidance” or design was.

 

[buffalo]

OK, here’s the point I think we missing in this conversation:

Consider the following scenario: A man walks on water, and 10,000 people witness it, none of whom are insane. There is indisputable proof it was not an optical illusion.

Ought science investigate the cause? Yes or no?

I would say yes. Perhaps we will discover a scientific mechanism that was at work. Will the scientific explanation make the action any less miraculous? Of course not. (Miracles are *not *violations in the universal laws of nature – anyone who says such a thing clearly hasn’t taken logic).

So, in the case of the existence of DNA, we have an infinitesimally unlikely event. Perhaps it is overly hasty for people to claim that God did it, but certainly it is not overly hasty for us to inquire scientifically after the cause, whatever it may be? Why do scientists not want this question to be asked?

Of course, as soon as we ask the question, people will jump to conclusions. It makes for headlines, if nothing else. But the fact that people jump to conclusions ought not scare off scientists from doing their job.

If God created the universe, of course, then God need not have “interfered” to make DNA come to be. DNA would have unfolded, from the determination of elements from the beginning of time. Thus, there would exist a scientific explanation for the event, just as there would exist a scientific explanation (whether or not we could manage to find it) for a person who walked on water.

In essence, then, the religious question is entirely divorced from the scientific question. The scientist should seek for a scientific explanation. The religious question is this: how unlikely was this event? Most people consider the occurrence of unlikely events some measure of evidence for supernatural realities. Perhaps they are wrong to think so – if they are, please tell me why.

The DNA molecule, but what about the DNA language?