RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: Creating CSI with NS, H T T H H H T H T T H H H H T T T< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The whole truth

Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,16:42   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,13:02)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 20 2012,13:25)

You're missing the point Jerry. The analogy fails because it doesn't actually demonstrate a requirement of specificity. There in lies the problem. It's basically a circular analogy - it relies upon the assumption of specificity to try to show that specificity is required.

There is NO assumptions and it readily demonstrates specificity in a manner that is easily calculated. As the archer's chances of hitting an assigned target decreases, specificity increases...that is what specificity IS.....I'm just trying to show what it is at this point as no one on here seems to know.

It DOESN'T say anything about specificity being required for anything and indeed specificity is not even present in some systems. I have never hinted otherwise.

In fact, I've yet to be presented anything by the posters in here as an example that contained specificity to consider to begin with...that's why I've reverted to some middle school level examples here...

No, I can't. You see, those things are part of the reason your claims are erroneous.

I haven't MADE any claims....if you think I have, please link to them and I will clarify. I'm trying to get everyone on the same page as to what CSI even IS before we discuss it.  It's not calculations of Jesus coming, that you did or didn't magically morph from an ape, that Darwinsim is science or a crock or anything similar. It's just very simple statistics.

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing
Sorry Jerry, but I don't see it. I've gone back through the thread and see nothing that even remotely looks like a calculation of the CSI of an organism. Feel free to reference the specific calculation in your response.

Well, in response to several accusations (out of ignorance, I suppose) I was challenged to show how one would go about calculating the CSI of living tissue and I simply posted some of my own writings:

"The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change."

Actually, you've "MADE" many claims, including "These were designed."

Deliberately designed things require a designer. Who or what is the designer? Where, when, and how did the alleged designer design whatever it allegedly designed? What all did it design and what didn't it design? And how did the things it didn't design come about?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

  128 replies since Oct. 06 2012,18:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]