Replies

Actually, now that you mentioned it, I think I have seen this "proof" before. Is it the one where they use some bogus logic to show that anything with odds greater than some large number (like 1 in 10^80 or so) is really mathematically impossible? They then use some more bogus numbers to derive a probability for abiogenesis that is lower than this. I pretty much debunked that argument by pointing out that the sequence of the last 25 powerball drawings actually occurring is far less probable than the criterion of mathematical impossibility given in the "proof."

Is it the one where they use some bogus logic to show that anything with odds greater than some large number (like 1 in 10^80 or so) is really mathematically impossible?

Possibly. I've seen that one too. But I was talking about something even dumber, based on numerology. Something about the number of books in the bible, the number of words, of letters, the days of creation, the number of this, of that, and then ... badda-bing! There's your proof. It appeals to a certain kind of pre-human mentality.

...the sequence of the last 25 powerball drawings actually occurring is far less probable than the criterion of mathematical impossibility given in the "proof."

I presume that you are saying that the probibility of any long series of "random" events is close to zero. Yet things do happen.

The real crime of ID is assuming that things that are unknown are unknowable. If we cannot demonstrate abiogenesis then it is not worth investigating. If we do not understand all the small steps leading to a complex structure, it is not worth investigating.

ID is a totalitarian impulse, a shutting down of curiosity. It derives directly from the notion of original sin, which asserts that curiosity is a mortal sin.

Er, if I may, I'd like to offer an invitation in response to your post to PatrickHenry:

Actually, now that you mentioned it, I think I have seen this "proof" before. Is it the one where they use some bogus logic to show that anything with odds greater than some large number (like 1 in 10^80 or so) is really mathematically impossible? They then use some more bogus numbers to derive a probability for abiogenesis that is lower than this. I pretty much debunked that argument by pointing out that the sequence of the last 25 powerball drawings actually occurring is far less probable than the criterion of mathematical impossibility given in the "proof."

There is stronger evidence for the "mathematical impossibility" of abiogenesis than probabilities - namely, the presence of information (Shannon) in biological systems. Claude Shannon's definition of information (Mathematics of Communications) is a reduction of uncertainty in the receiver.

Here's a thought experiment: meditate on the difference between a live skin cell and a dead skin cell. The difference is successful communication - the live skin cell is successfully communicating, the dead one is not. The DNA and the chemicals are as good dead as alive.

Successful communications occurs when a message is encoded and broadcast by a source and then received and decoded by its intended recipient. This is science and math, an area of research in cancer, for instance, for the National Institute of Health.

Finding a material cause (abiogenesis) requires looking for an origin for biological autonomy and semiosis (syntax or language) and the communication itself. After decades of research, Yockey says that life should be taken as an axiom (like wave/particle duality) - but others (Rocha, etc.) continue to search for an origin.

We Freepers are currently engaged in a wide ranging discussion of this subject beginning at post 253 on another thread. Or if you prefer to take a quick peek at a visual to see if it interests you: post 341.

I'm confident betty boop also welcomes you to join us in this respectful and wide ranging research project.

js1138, I'm pinging you also because of your reply to Stremba and your interest in such subjects. You know your views are always welcome!