Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:18)|
|Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 27 2012,10:35)|
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:57)|
|As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))|
If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.
yes, please do.
|If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.|
is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't
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 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.
Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.
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). 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You have already been given a long list of problems with this "calculation" of a protein.
How do you deal with the tendency of some amino acids to want to bond with certain other amino acids more than other amino acids?
How do you deal with the simple fact that you are not describing the process of protein generation at all?
How do you deal with the issue that if I expect a oxygen to interact with two specific hydrogen atoms in the entire universe is massively, epically improbable, but the probability of an oxygen reacting with ANY two hydrogen atoms approaches 1? In other words, there appears to be no consideration for the actual distribution of amino acids in a particular "neighborhood". If we want to have a chemical reaction occur in a nebula, it is going to take a lot longer than it would near a hot smoker here on Earth.
What about the problem that you are calculating the probability of a random jumble of amino acids forming a bacteria, when no respectable scientist even considers the possibility that it happened that way?
In other words, your 'calculation' is not only not a calculation, but it's not even wrong. You'd have to take into account thousands of unique variables to even get just to the "wrong" category.
Because, very simply (as has been told you before) THAT IS NOT HOW PROTEINS FORM!
Actually, the odds do change if cells formed, one step at a time starting from simple 5 pentamer ribozymes.
Of course, the final insult is that none of this describes evolution. It's all abiogenesis, which again doesn't happen the way you describe. Because you're quite right, it would be massively improbably for a self-replicating RNA strand to come together from random nucleotides in a sea of organic junk. Which is why, there are steps along the way.
So, yes, I can see you THINK that you have calculated something and you very well may have. Unfortunately for you, what you calculated has absolutely no bearing on how the world actually works.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.