RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2153
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,16:36   

"If evolution were true, we'd see dogs giving birth to cats."

Yawn.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,16:46   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,16:00)
Ahhhh...OK....I'll be careful next time I reproduce.....an apeoid might pop out...lol

Of course it will; you are an ape, your wife is an ape, what else would you produce?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,16:49   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
[quote=Lou FCD,Nov. 27 2012,09:53][/quote]
 
Quote
orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.


Wow, what cruel and primitive teachers you must have to treat you like that. :)))

So, if the definition of evolution is NOT: the change in the gene pool of a population over time.......then what is it?

From the University or Oregon:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html

Which is not what you posted.

The fact that you don't see the difference is all the evidence needed that you haven't got a clue.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,17:00   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,16:49)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,09:53)

 
Quote
orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.


Wow, what cruel and primitive teachers you must have to treat you like that. :)))

So, if the definition of evolution is NOT: the change in the gene pool of a population over time.......then what is it?

From the University or Oregon:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html

Which is not what you posted.

The fact that you don't see the difference is all the evidence needed that you haven't got a clue.

I've only posted that EXACT same definition about 15 times now. Please read the posts. I assumed you were......

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,18:24   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,18:00)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,16:49)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,09:53)

   
Quote
orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.


Wow, what cruel and primitive teachers you must have to treat you like that. :)))

So, if the definition of evolution is NOT: the change in the gene pool of a population over time.......then what is it?

From the University or Oregon:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html

Which is not what you posted.

The fact that you don't see the difference is all the evidence needed that you haven't got a clue.

I've only posted that EXACT same definition about 15 times now. Please read the posts. I assumed you were......

Yep, you're an idiot.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,20:45   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:18)
Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If you're going to cut-and-paste from one of your past comments, I'll just cut-and-paste the response I posted the first time your verbiage appeared:

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)
If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

True. Assuming it's an ungimmicked coin (which I'm going to do all throughout this comment, unless I explicitly state otherwise), there's a 50% chance of that coin coming up heads when it's flipped, and that probability is completely independent of how many other coins may or may not have come up heads when they (those other coins) were flipped.
   
Quote
Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100).

True. Given 100 unflipped coins, each individual coin of that unflipped 100 has a 50% chance of coming up heads, so the chances of all 100 of those unflipped coins coming up heads, when they're flipped, is, indeed, (1/2)100. And presuming my copy of Maple 7 can be trusted, that works out to a touch under 1:1030.
   
Quote
But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads.

In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.
   
Quote
Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads?

Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.
   
Quote
They’re still the same 1:(.5^100).

False, as explained above. But if you believe you're right, I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?
   
Quote
So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100).

Right, because you've shifted back from 25 flipped coins that came up heads, plus 25 flipped coins that came up tails, plus 50 unflipped coins to 100 unflipped coins.
   
Quote
So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

False. If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.
Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…
   
Quote
For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

True, and what of it? Seeing as how atoms do, in fact, "bond"—they're famous for it—I'm not sure what the problem is.
   
Quote
The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

Yep. But again, atoms do "bond", so what's your point?
   
Quote
But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So?
   
Quote
And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

Yes. So what?
   
Quote
For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Hold it. How did Brewster and Morris come up with this "1067" figure? Citation needed…
   
Quote
Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
   
Quote
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.

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,02:30   

Has anyone ever noticed that creationists behave as if kinetic and thermodynamic issues don't matter when discussing the chemistry involved? It's like they've never heard of catalysts or activation energy.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,07:59   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,02:30)
Has anyone ever noticed that creationists behave as if kinetic and thermodynamic issues don't matter when discussing the chemistry involved? It's like they've never heard of catalysts or activation energy.

All the time.  It's probably because they don't understand chemistry or anything else.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,09:09   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2012,20:45)
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
 

This is the simplest possible example for creationists who use the silly UPB argument from large numbers, and consistently demonstrates that the people who use the argument know nothing about probablility and statistics, or do know and are just being dishonest.

Because Billy Bob has been corrected and persists in supporting the argument, dishonesty is the only answer.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
stevestory



Posts: 8992
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,10:51   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2012,10:09)
Because Billy Bob has been corrected and persists in supporting the argument, dishonesty is the only answer.

Not necessarily. He could have strong cognitive bias, or a learning disability.

   
Quack



Posts: 1784
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,11:14   

Before I'd attempt to use the UPB in any context I'd make sure I understood what it is all about.

Consulting Wikipedia I get the impression that my original thoughts on the subject was not too far from what to me looks like the most parsimonious interpretation, UPB is a waste of time.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,11:15   

Gee...an intelligent post in here? Rare. I'll jump on it:

 
Quote
In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.
   
Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.


Thanks for catching that......You're absolutely right and my meaning  wasn't clear at all..If I could edit my post I would delete that one line and go to the next...My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)

But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.

BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system. Good job...LOL

This is a system consisting of coins, however, it could be virtually ANY system, a system of proteins that comprise living tissue such as a cell, flagellum, genome or an entire organism......the mathematical methodology would not change. however, of course, the numbers of possible components would. For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.


 
Quote
I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?


Of course not. Your logic is faulty here (or maybe you're playing mind games with me (which is OK because I do this all the time.....) but another purpose for my lengthy diatribe leading up to final 100 coin flip is to show that regardless of how many coins were previously flipped, the odds of any ONE coin coming up heads or tails is always 50/50.

People often become confused by systems......that is very important in understanding ID (and also thermodynamics if we later go there).

What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.



       
Quote
If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…


I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?

We have added intelligence into the system. A Conscious Observer selects the desired outcome of each coin throw in order to construct (create) an ultimate  system that it desires to exist.

Welcome to Intelligent Design....*wink*

 
Quote
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.


That's not correct.....don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician and I named a few others including Borel. If you are going to claim otherwise, I need names.

After looking, I no longer have the Brewster/Morris reference on this computer.....Just disregard that and go with Borel/Dembski...That should cause you no grief.

 
Quote
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.


This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.


       
Quote

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…


I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?

If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......italium

And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that.

I also don't recall you "calling" me on anything in debate where I actually conceded a point to you...do I know you from somewhere else?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,11:34   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
   
Quote
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.


This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.

In order for this rebuttle to be relevant, you have to admit that your argument from probability assumes its own conclusion.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
JohnW



Posts: 2295
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,11:36   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,09:15)
This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.

If you assume the universe was created with the specific aim of producing, some 13 billion years later, a nondescript spiral galaxy with a small planet containing a bipedal ape called called Jerry Don Bauer, and having that ape spew innumerate, scientifically illiterate nonsense on a website, you'd have a point.  

If you have any evidence to support that assumption, you have yet to present it.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,13:06   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,14:29   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1510
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,14:48   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)


Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics?

Of course it does you dolt.  I take it you've never played draw poker.

Which hand had the greater probability of holding a flush?

a) a straight 5 card deal.

b) a 5 card deal with added 'selection' of up to 3 discards and redraws.

The probability of a particular result from a feedback system is always going to depend on the effects of the feedback.  Your idiotic model for protein formation totally ignores any selection feedback, or the accumulation of traits over time.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,15:23   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.
[/quote]

Yes, but the same is not true of amino acids forming chains.

Quote

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.


This is wrong.

Quote

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.


Expand our minds beyond what science knows to be correct?  Wouldn't that be... well... wrong?

Quote

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.


It's SELECTION.  When you SELECT things you are eliminating some of the random effects.  

For example, let's say a mutation causes a fetus to spontaneously abort after 12 weeks of development.  What is the probability of that mutant allele becoming fixed in the population?  The answer is zero.


[quote]
More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?

I've used this analogy before and keep in mind that it is an analogy.  This is a tool for teaching to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or background to actually discuss the details of the subject under consideration.

Imagine the World Series of Poker.  Ten thousand people come to play poker.  But when they arrive, it's announced that this is new version of poker and here's how it's played.

Everyone at the table is dealt one card.  After the card is dealt a random generator tells what is the order of hands and cards at that table.  For example, Jacks are high and 8s are low with the other cards scattered in between.

Now, the winner of that one card hand advances and every other HAND is eliminated.  But the players get to stay.  Each player who is eliminated gets to choose between two cards, without looking.  One of the cards is the exact same card as the winning player's card.  The other is a random card from the deck.

Now each of the players at the table has one card and about 50% will have the winning card.  Now, another card is dealt.  The random generator again makes up a order of hands and numbers.  This time a pair of 3s is highest, next is the ace of spades, followed by a pair of kings, then any 2, etc.

The winner at each table is determined and every other player throws his hand out.  This time, every other player selects from three cards.  Two are the same as the winner's hand, the third is a random card from the deck.  [This would be impossible to play in real life.]

Now, everyone has 2 cards.  About 1/3 of the players at the table have the winning hand and 2/3s have one of the winning hand's cards and one random card.

Repeat until everyone has a 5 card hand.  Then, everyone gets up and is randomly paired with another player.  The random generator does its thing and every pair of players determines who won and who lost.  The winner keeps playing, the loser goes home.  Repeat starting with a new one card hand.

That's not a perfect analogy to evolution, but it's closer than anything you've said.  However, the mathematics should be easy enough to follow.

You see how reproduction plays a part and increases the tendency for winning hands in the entire community.  You see how within a population (a table) the winning hand will begin to dominate, unless there is a lucky mutation and a change in the environment (what's a winning hand) that emphasizes it.

For example, by the five card stage every hand has two pair.  One pair of red kings and a pair of red threes.  Now, one of the players ended up with a mutation in his hand that gave him an additional three.  It hasn't mattered because he still has two pair (kings and threes).  But suddenly, the environment changes and the full house becomes higher on the winning hand list than the two pair has been.  Now, everyone's hand will tend to resemble the full house... but maybe one player picks 3 threes and a king and a 5.  He doesn't have a full house anymore, but maybe the environment will change to have 3 of kind more favorable than a full house or two pair.  Or maybe he ended up with a flush.

That's kind of how it works.  

If you don't calculate the probability USING THE FACTORS AT THE TIME, then you are wasting your time.

Trying to determine the odds of getting a full house when you only have two cards in your hand is impossible.  It's not even calculable, the question is meaningless.  Like wise, assuming you have a great big pile of amino acids, then trying to determine the odds of getting a flagellal motor is also meaningless.  It's the wrong question.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,15:23   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.
[/quote]

OMG that's the funniest thing I've read since "butterfly wombs" . Out of curiosity, and the satisfaction of my mind, have you taken any chemistry courses ever in your life? If so, I would love to hear why you think starting conditions have no impact on chemical reactions.

Quote
But, I think I know where you are wanting to go


I'm betting you don't.

Quote
Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?


I don't know if it's strictly NS but I think some mutations don't lead to offspring that will develop at all, so the offspring that are actually born aren't really going to be a representative sample of all possible mutations a population could have (in terms of mathematical as opposed to real world).

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,15:26   

Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,16:38   

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 28 2012,15:23][/quote]
Quote

This is wrong.


OK...LOL....This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

 
Quote

Expand our minds beyond what science knows to be correct?  Wouldn't that be... well... wrong?


It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

 
Quote
It's SELECTION.  When you SELECT things you are eliminating some of the random effects.  

For example, let's say a mutation causes a fetus to spontaneously abort after 12 weeks of development.  What is the probability of that mutant allele becoming fixed in the population?  The answer is zero.


OK....and....what does this have to do with probability mathematics. Isn't there another fetus somewhere that may not abort and a detrimental mutation becomes fixed into the population? What is your point with this?


Quote

I've used this analogy before and keep in mind that it is an analogy.  This is a tool for teaching to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or background to actually discuss the details of the subject under consideration.

Imagine the World Series of Poker.  Ten thousand people come to play poker.  But when they arrive, it's announced that this is new version of poker and here's how it's played.

Everyone at the table is dealt one card.  After the card is dealt a random generator tells what is the order of hands and cards at that table.  For example, Jacks are high and 8s are low with the other cards scattered in between.

Now, the winner of that one card hand advances and every other HAND is eliminated.  But the players get to stay.  Each player who is eliminated gets to choose between two cards, without looking.  One of the cards is the exact same card as the winning player's card.  The other is a random card from the deck.

Now each of the players at the table has one card and about 50% will have the winning card.  Now, another card is dealt.  The random generator again makes up a order of hands and numbers.  This time a pair of 3s is highest, next is the ace of spades, followed by a pair of kings, then any 2, etc.

The winner at each table is determined and every other player throws his hand out.  This time, every other player selects from three cards.  Two are the same as the winner's hand, the third is a random card from the deck.  [This would be impossible to play in real life.]

Now, everyone has 2 cards.  About 1/3 of the players at the table have the winning hand and 2/3s have one of the winning hand's cards and one random card.

Repeat until everyone has a 5 card hand.  Then, everyone gets up and is randomly paired with another player.  The random generator does its thing and every pair of players determines who won and who lost.  The winner keeps playing, the loser goes home.  Repeat starting with a new one card hand.

That's not a perfect analogy to evolution, but it's closer than anything you've said.  However, the mathematics should be easy enough to follow.

You see how reproduction plays a part and increases the tendency for winning hands in the entire community.  You see how within a population (a table) the winning hand will begin to dominate, unless there is a lucky mutation and a change in the environment (what's a winning hand) that emphasizes it.

For example, by the five card stage every hand has two pair.  One pair of red kings and a pair of red threes.  Now, one of the players ended up with a mutation in his hand that gave him an additional three.  It hasn't mattered because he still has two pair (kings and threes).  But suddenly, the environment changes and the full house becomes higher on the winning hand list than the two pair has been.  Now, everyone's hand will tend to resemble the full house... but maybe one player picks 3 threes and a king and a 5.  He doesn't have a full house anymore, but maybe the environment will change to have 3 of kind more favorable than a full house or two pair.  Or maybe he ended up with a flush.

That's kind of how it works.  

If you don't calculate the probability USING THE FACTORS AT THE TIME, then you are wasting your time.

Trying to determine the odds of getting a full house when you only have two cards in your hand is impossible.  It's not even calculable, the question is meaningless.  Like wise, assuming you have a great big pile of amino acids, then trying to determine the odds of getting a flagellal motor is also meaningless.  It's the wrong question.


I couldn't disagree more that this has anything to do with natural selection or what I have discussed which is rather sad because it looks like you put a lot of work into it. :)

OF COURSE...the winning hands will eventually win the poker tournament?????

Are you trying to calculate the probabilities of someone winning? Perhaps you could list the points I'm missing....I'm trying here..lol

Is there some paramount point therein that I simply missed?

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,16:41   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
The environment is irrelevant.

 

But earlier wrote (c/p?) this:
     
Quote

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....6eBajkw

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,16:44   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,15:26)
Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?

No, I don't...What...you are not familiar with survival of the fittest???

And I'll ignore your other post as those who know me online already know that my major in college was environmental chemistry with a biology minor...therefore that entire post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1510
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,16:46   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:44)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,15:26)
Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?

No, I don't...What...you are not familiar with survival of the fittest???

And I'll ignore your other post as those who know me online already know that my major in college was environmental chemistry with a biology minor...therefore that entire post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Well it sure wasn't mathematics, because you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to understanding probability theory.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,16:48   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
The environment is irrelevant.

 

But earlier wrote (c/p?) this:
     
Quote

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....6eBajkw

Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2295
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,16:50   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:38)

It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

Why not just skip all the laughable mangling of science and mathematics, and move on to the preaching, Jerry?  We all know that's where this is headed.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,16:54   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

eta: ok I read what Jerry wrote a bit wrong. I'll write more in a bit.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,17:14   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:54)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

There is no need for you to ignore chemistry...lay it on me. And I promise not to ignore any.....in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.

The racemic mixture I was referring to...consisting of 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids will stay that way due to chemical equilibrium. If you have studied chemistry, you will, in fact, know that there is a law that dictates this...*wink*

You won't overcome that argument going to chemistry..that solution will always be racemic and therefore the math always work...in ANY environment.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,18:22   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,17:14)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:54)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

There is no need for you to ignore chemistry...lay it on me. And I promise not to ignore any.....in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.

The racemic mixture I was referring to...consisting of 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids will stay that way due to chemical equilibrium. If you have studied chemistry, you will, in fact, know that there is a law that dictates this...*wink*

You won't overcome that argument going to chemistry..that solution will always be racemic and therefore the math always work...in ANY environment.

I thought you studied this stuff.

EarthEvidence for the Likely Origin of Homochirality in Amino Acids, Sugars, and Nucleosides on Prebiotic

The Origin of Biological Homochirality

(4) Bailey, Jeremy, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Francois Menard, and Motohide Tamura. “Circular Polarization in Star-Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality.” Science. 1998. Volume 281, p. 672-674. http://www.jstor.org/stable....6?seq=1

(5) Flores, Jose J., William A. Bonner, and Gail A. Massey. “Asymmetric Photolysis of (RS)-Leucine with Circularly Polarized Ultraviolet Light.” The Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1977. Volume 99, No 11. p. 3622-3624. http://pubs.acs.org/doi....eSet=1.

(6) Cronin, John R., and Sandra Pizzarello. “Enantiomeric Excesses in Meteoritic Amino Acids.” Science. 1997. Volume 275, No 91. 951-955. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi....951.pdf

(7) Levine, Mindy, Craig Scott Kenesky, Daniel Mazori, and Ronald Breslow. “Enantioselective Synthesis and Enantiomeric Amplification of Amino Acids under Prebiotic Conditions. Organic Letters. 2008. Volume 10, No 12. p. 2432-2436. http://www.dcb-server.unibe.ch/groups....df

(8) Bada, Jeffrey L. "Amino Acid Homochirality on Earth and Mars." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. 1996. Volume 26, No 3-5. 150-151. http://www.springerlink.com/content....xt.pdf.

(9) Glavin, Daniel P. and Jason P. Dworkin. “Enrichment of the Amino Acid L-Isovaline by Aqueous Alteration of Cl and CM Meteorite Parent Bodies.” PNAS. 2009.

(10) Kondepudi, Dilip K., Rebecca J. Kaufman, Nolini Singh. "Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Sodium Chlorate Crystallization." Science. 1990. Volume 250, No 4983. 975-976. http://www.jstor.org/stable....240.pdf

So, now that's out of the way...

back to amino acids.  Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff.  The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal.  This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff.  If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2012,18:41   

Quote
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.


Apologies in advance but I don't know how to do post/subscripts:

The bolded part can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.

 
Quote
Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.


Even if that were true it doesn't help you at all, as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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