I had this debate with the abiogenesis believers (before most of them got banned) several years back. They have trouble accepting the scientific facts that show that the probability of necessary molecules forming by chance is something on the order of 1 in 10^210. Then those molecules have to survive the whole process. Most scientists use 1 in 100 to represent this figure, which is off by more than 200 orders of magnitude. That’s like saying the primary cause of elephants dying is due to kinetic energy of mosquitoes hitting them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1471892/posts?page=78#78
... big science is becoming a necessarily highly inductive and specialized pursuit more along the lines of a religion. Our society is becoming more like Persia under the Stargazers with each passing year. What you should know is that I am not a biologist/geneticist, but I invite their comments. My comments would be limited to pointers on inductive reasoning. Please, by all means, feel free to take on the study that was mentioned and tell us all why SETI is worthy of our tax dollars in light of the Drake Equation modifications. This is not a creationist thread. Please give us the actual figures that are pertinent here. What I note from the differing views on what should go into the Drake equation is that it stops becoming a deductive pursuit and becomes more inductive because all the data are not in. When scientists argue with scientists over what the data really means, usually there are some baseline data that both sides rely on. I’m not interested in debating the creationist/evolutionist issues on this particular thread.
It’s also acknowledged that this doesn’t stop the anti-evolutionists from posting the same crap again next week as if no objections had ever been raised before...
***As I noted, this is not a creationist thread, so feel free to tell us what the pertinent figures should be and why the esteemed scientists who are spending our tax dollars are not wasting them.
And what in the hell is a “lower amino acid” — you’re not even making sense here.
***Sorry about that, I was proceeding from memory and I am not a biologist/geneticist. You seem to have figured out what the gist of the controversy was.
The chances of getting accidentally synthesized left amino acids for one small protein molecule is one chance in 10^210. That is a number with 210 zeros after it! Such probabilities are indeed impossibilities. The number is so vast as to be totally out of the question.
Nice straw man you’ve got there. You’re calculating something that most likely is “impossible” in a statistical sense (even though you’re garbling it when you try to say it — “accidentally synthesized left amino acids” are the *easy* part...), but it’s a bait-and-switch since that “something” you’re calculating is *not* among the many scenarios being considered for abiogenesis.
***I pulled if from the www as a representation of the controversy. Thanks for setting us all straight. As I noted, I’m not a biologist/geneticist. There is a triangulation going on here. Many people will read through threads like this and decide for themselves. I notice that evolutionists seem to have a lot of scorn for people who aren’t experts in their particular field, but when they run up against folks who are experts, the dialog tends to evolve into one of those finer point discussions similar to theologists who discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Such digressive discussion furthers my point that science is becoming a religion. That’s the first part of this inductive triangle. The second part is the science that was relied upon for getting federal dollars so that we could do the SETI program. When renowned scientists such as Stephen Hawking start acknowledging that the odds against abiogenesis are astronomical, it makes your average conservative look askance at the money being spent on SETI. The third part of this triangle is in the evolution/creation debate, which is full of acrimony. I don’t have time to get into it for now, just lurking on that one for the time being, but I do think that eventually some baseline data will be agreed to by both sides. It’s the baseline data inside the inductive triangle that I’m interested in.
“I had this debate with the abiogenesis believers (before most of them got banned) several years back. They have trouble accepting the scientific facts that show that the probability of necessary molecules forming by chance is something on the order of 1 in 10^210. Then those molecules have to survive the whole process. Most scientists use 1 in 100 to represent this figure, which is off by more than 200 orders of magnitude. That’s like saying the primary cause of elephants dying is due to kinetic energy of mosquitoes hitting them.”
In my opinion, which really doesn’t count for much, for abiogenesis to even be possible would require that “life” is an “intrinsic” property of matter. Meaning that the elements, especially Carbon, Oxygen, etc. would have to have properties that would always cause them to form into “life” whenever the circumstances (temp, pressure, etc.) allowed it (i.e. like water always forms ice when at 1 atmoshere and 0 degrees celcius). Personally, I think this idea to be silly, and I have never seen anyone directly claim to adhere to it. However, they must believe it on some level because they keep speculating that life will be found in some pretty strange places. Call it the “Intrinsic Property of Matter” postulate that no one has openly postulated. To overcome the statistical improbability, an “instrinsic” property to form life would be needed.
Whatever, the scientist in this case is the Jewish equivalent of a Christian theistic evolutionist.