3 ms·

TFA says: ‘He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in th

TFA says: ‘He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”‘ This is ridiculous. I mean, it is exactly the sort of argument you get from the young earth creationists like Ken Hamm. (That’s the nut who founded the Creation Museum. Which is highly entertaining to visit.) Yale’s public intellectuals are pretty embarrassing, lately.

ChrisCinelli 7y ago
When I was in elementary school I was told about Miller's experiment: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/21/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/2... but nothing has ever filled the gap between his results and how a bacteria could be generated. This is one explanation of what could have happened: http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life Is there any more supporting evidence that life really started that way?
- ChrisCinelli 7y ago
  This is more detailed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Conclusion in the link: The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies. At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle -> protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

ChrisCinelli 7y ago

When I was in elementary school I was told about Miller's experiment: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/21/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/2... but nothing has ever filled the gap between his results and how a bacteria could be generated. This is one explanation of what could have happened: http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life Is there any more supporting evidence that life really started that way?

ChrisCinelli 7y ago
This is more detailed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Conclusion in the link: The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies. At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle -> protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.