Saturday, December 26, 2009

It’s a Gimme!

“The probability of getting one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded person finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row.”

“The probability of getting one protein molecule, by chance, is the same as a blindfolded person choosing the correct marked atom from the whole universe.”

These two comments highlight the improbability of, well, you know, Chance being responsible for generating one protein molecule. Richard Dawkins, who on the one hand claims to shy away from outcomes with a high improbability, on the other hand says that the rise of life from non life is a gimme.

To get life, you need about 200 proteins - together. Here’s the catch.

DNA is dependent on proteins for its production, but
Proteins are dependent on DNA for their production.

Atheists see no problem because, if “nature did it” well, then, it’s a gimme.

Why? Nature brings order. So say the atheists.

In reality, nature left to itself brings disorder.

Well, ok, that SEEMS true, says your friendly neighbourhood atheist - unless - you give nature lots and lots of time. Then for some reason, the opposite happens. According to atheists, if you give nature lots and lots of time, and I mean A LOT of time, then, again according to atheists, The Second Law of Thermodynamics no longer applies and order comes from disorder - naturally.

So say atheists. In fact, “It’s a gimme.”

12 comments:

Hugo said...

Hey again, let's continue the discussing a little bit here I guess because it will complement my other comment.

Ok, so what about change eh?

Well there is a major flaw in your way of exposing the chance factor.

Can I use an example again?

Let's say that to get protein A you need a sequence like that:

2-2-2-2-2

The 5 digits can be represented by dices that we throw to test the probability of getting exactly that sequence.

Of course, the odds are really low, because you have actually 6 possibilities for each digit, so you have 6^5 possibilities in total: 7776!

That's a lot of tries to do before ending up with 2-2-2-2-2

But that's not how nature works at all. The idea is that to get a better analogy you need to keep the dices that are correct at each throw. So, for example, it could go like that:

1) 1-2-3-4-5
2) 4-2-5-6-1
3) 2-2-1-1-6
4) 2-2-3-5-1
5) 2-2-5-3-2
6) 2-2-2-6-2
7) 2-2-2-2-2

So, instead of 7000 rolls I needed only 7. Of course it could be much more but you get the idea... even if we were to do it sequentially, throwing one dice at a time, it would only take on average 5x6, 30 tries, to get the result, as we need on average 6 throws to get a '2'.

In other words, it is bogus to talk about these probabilities as if everything had to suddenly appear as is, actually that's what creationist will claim...

Finally, the idea you wrote in bold as if it were some irrefutable claim is bogus:
DNA is dependent on proteins for its production, but
Proteins are dependent on DNA for their production.

As it has been pointed out to you before, it's not because this is how it works now that it had to work like that in ancient cells, so it's completely pointless to talk about this vicious circle as if it needed to suddenly appear as is.

Ginx said...

“The probability of getting one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded person finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row.”

“The probability of getting one protein molecule, by chance, is the same as a blindfolded person choosing the correct marked atom from the whole universe.”


These probabilities do not add up (i.e. are vastly different), so I do not need to even continue reading beyond this point.

No one cares what you can pull out of your uneducated ass. If you're such a scientific genius, write the Creationist paper that disproves all of biology and earn your fucking Nobel already.

Ginx said...

Sorry, my Christmas cheer wore off. I also cannot believe you're coming back to this.

When you can explain to me how you or anyone can calculate the probability of a system for which we have little knowledge, I'll be happy to read it.

No one is saying how anything began, only Creationists seem so damn sure. I know better than to believe anyone who claims to know something when in fact we (especially experts who know more than I) are unsure.

Makarios said...

You obviously missed a really good comment from Gorth. He had an expert who was absolutely certain how life came to be. Science, he told us, has it all nailed down.

So the Law of Uniformity is not how you understand nature?

Gorth Satana said...

Maybe you should reread the comment again.

Hugo said...

He had an expert who was absolutely certain how life came to be. Science, he told us, has it all nailed down.

Am I allowed to have doubts

oh, and while replying, Gorth does mention to read the comment again, lol

Which comment are you guys talking about?

Gorth Satana said...

http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/sigh-disappointing.html?showComment=1261361641464#c8482807997940066996

Christ Follower (no longer) said...

Comments from "(((Sigh))) Disappointing".

Hugo said...

oh ya, that one, thanks!, I'll read it again because I remember that it was very interesting...

Hugo said...

Oh well, Makarios really need to read it again I agree...

Time to go eat! then drink! then... I don't know, sin as much as possible ;)

Good evening to you all

Ginx said...

Am I the only atheist who doesn't drink?? Other than my wife...

Glen20 said...

Nope.