But according to *Nautilus*, “life on the planet Earth may owe its existence to one freakish event”:

There are many possible explanations, but one of these has recently gained a lot of ground. It tells of a prokaryote that somehow found its way inside another, and formed a lasting partnership with its host. This inner cell—a bacterium—abandoned its free-living existence and eventually transformed into the mitochondria. These internal power plants provided the host cell with a bonanza of energy, allowing it to evolve in new directions that other prokaryotes could never reach.

If this story is true, and there are still those who doubt it, then all eukaryotes—every flower and fungus, spider and sparrow, man and woman—descended from a sudden and breathtakingly improbable merger between two microbes. They were our great-great-great-great-…-great-grandparents, and by becoming one, they laid the groundwork for the life forms that seem to make our planet so special. The world as we see it (and the fact that we see it at all; eyes are a eukaryotic invention) was irrevocably changed by that fateful union—a union so unlikely that it very well might not have happened at all, leaving our world forever dominated by microbes, never to welcome sophisticated and amazing life like trees, mushrooms, caterpillars, and us. More.

This is, of course, belongs to the “just by chance” school of thought on origin of life. Of course, symbiosis probably sometimes occurred. But put in this grandiose way, the theory suffers from the same limitations that all such theorizing about human history does. (For example, if George Washington had never been born, other Americans would never have thought of the idea of a democratic republic …)

More sophisticated approaches to history, of life or humans or nations, tend to assume that things follow certain patterns, triggered at times by individuals or events—but not simply at random.

Anyway, for more on “pure chance” theories of origin of life, check out: Can all the numbers for life’s origin just happen to fall into place?

and

Origin of life: Could it all have come together in one very special place?

Anyway, this new theory sure won’t be lonely. See: Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick? Just look at all the ones that have been thrown!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

No, symbiosis, absolutely frequently occurred. Termites can’t digest wood without them. We can’t digest our food without our gut bacteria. Legumes cannot fix nitrogen without them. Many corals cannot survive without them.

The idea that mitochondria and chloroplasts are the result of symbiotic bacteria is not new. In both cases they have DNA that is different than the

hostcell, suggesting a different ancestry than the host. As well, their DNA is circular, reminiscent of prokaryotic DNA.Acartia_bogart:

It is not a testable concept. Not yet anyway.

Also endosymbiosis doesn’t account for the nucleus. And without that you don’t have eukaryotes.

I have to say that endosymbiosis is one of the less objectionable scenerios in the materialist mythos. However to suggest only one freakish event is required in the materialist origins myth is misleading; literally billions upon billions are required. For example, the ribosome somehow has to happen.

Acartia_bogart:

I can well accept the endosymbiontic theory for mitochondria and chloroplasts. But certainly it does not explain the emergence of eukaryotes.

The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is almost as big and unexplained as the transition from non living matter to prokaryotes. In terms of functional information and, probably, in terms of everything else.

A few notes on endosymbiosis:

Of related interest, is the highly sophisticated, extremely precise, organization of ATP production in mitochondria:

Of related interest to ‘factories’ in the cell:

Further notes on problems with endosymbiosis:

Even more problematic for evolutionists, than the unexplained gap between prokaryote and eukaryote cells, is that even within the ‘bacterial world’ there are found to be enormous unexplained gaps of completely unique genes within each different type of bacteria which has had its DNA sequenced:

and since unguided Darwinian processes are found to be grossly insufficient to account for the orgination of even a single protein (or gene),,,

and since unguided Darwinian processes are also grossly insufficient to account for the orgination of protein binding sites,,

Then it is easy to see why people doubt that endosymbiosis ever occurred. Shoot, it is easy to see why people doubt that unguided Darwinian evolution ever did anything at all besides degrade pre-existing information! Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that it is possible for unguided processes to produce even trivial levels of the unfathomed complety we find in life.

Semi related:

“The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”

Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

Is that not one of the comical passages you’ve ever read in your life?

It should have said: “ … and

formed a lasting partnership with its host.”, because the heritability of this ‘freakish accidental event’ is in IMHO the utterly improbable part.somehow“It tells of a prokaryote that somehow found its way inside another, and formed a lasting partnership with its host.”

lol.

ok, can someone please explain to me what happened at the first cell division?

Did the Nautilus writer forget that other “freakish” idea — that the first living organism accidently came into existence with every machine needed to metabolize, transport nutrients, sense the environment variously, move, replicate, find energy, expel wastes, avoid destruction, repair damage, transport oxidant, avoid harmful molecular uptake, support internal communication, process energy, avoid damage and conserve all such functions post-replication.

Actually a holy idea for the materialist. For them, A Monster Event at the most significant point in time and space, very humbling but humility not in the cards with them.

Nothing builds itself, unless you are a Darwinist. Darwinists believe in dirt because, you see, dirt did it. Dirt can do anything. It can even create itself out of nothing. This is why we are dirt worshipers. We are made of the dust of the stars. We are star dust. We should be proud to be just dust, mother Earth and all that jazz.

Axel:

““The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster)…”I was wondering when someone would bring

The Behe’svoodoo statistics into the discussion. But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis?Acartia_bogart, it is interesting to note in Dr. Behe’s recent vindication of his ‘voodoo statistic’ by empirical research,,,

,,,It is interesting to note that Darwinists, instead of citing any empirical evidence of their own to refute Dr. Behe, tried to find fault in the mathematics, whilst Dr. Behe focused on the empirical evidence. Regardless of this gross deficiency in empirical evidence for Darwinists, and their empirically disconnected single minded focus on ‘mathematical fantasy’, Darwinists soon learned not to ever gamble with Dr. Behe:

Thus AB, you are in the very unfavorable position of, without experimental support, claiming that a 1 in 10^20 statistic derived directly from experimental work, is a ‘voodoo statistic’.

In what should be needless to say, if sneering at a direct empirical result is the best you can do to refute it, and you have no experimental work of you own by which to refute the empirical result that Dr. Behe cited, then this is extremely bad news for Darwinists to put it mildly! Since, as far as the science itself is concerned, to quote Feynman,,,

AB you also ask,,

And what would nails, bolts, nuts, and fasteners, have to do with building houses, cars, airplanes and computers?

of supplemental note: It is interesting to note that Chloroquine Resistance, as hard as it is for Darwinian processes to account for, is not even a gain in functional complexity for the malaria parasite in the first place but is a loss of functional complexity for the parasite.

Verse and Music:

So much for materialists looking down on Christians for having faith!

A_B: “No, symbiosis, absolutely frequently occurred. Termites can’t digest wood without them. We can’t digest our food without our gut bacteria. Legumes cannot fix nitrogen without them. Many corals cannot survive without them.”

You are correct that symbiosis exists all over the living world. However, please give me evidence of an example of intra-cellular symbiosis other than the proposed event being discussed.

BA77:

“Acartia_bogart, it is interesting to note in Dr. Behe’s recent vindication of his ‘voodoo statistic’ by empirical research,,,”It is interesting to note that I can prove that the probability of you being born is effectively zero using the same

voodoo maththatMr.Behe has used to prove that complexity is effectively impossible. And I must admit, I am borrowing the concept from someone else.Six billion people in the world. The odds of both of your parents meeting up on the specific day that they met? Effectively zero. And the odds that the specific ovum from your mother (1 of 400,000 potential follicles) and one specific sperm cell from your father (I don’t even know how many hundreds of millions that your father produced, and wasted before that lucky one), would get together are, again, effectively zero. So, the probability of an organism as complex as BA77 is, well, let’s call it zero. I think that I will call this the one BA77CC.

Given that Querius knows so much more about probability than I do, I will let him tell us what the probability is. But I am pretty sure that it makes Behe’s 10^20 seem like a certainty.

Want to play poker AB? 🙂

“Want to play poker AB? “Nah. Since you don’t exist, that would be virtual poker.

MD:

“You are correct that symbiosis exists all over the living world. However, please give me evidence of an example of intra-cellular symbiosis other than the proposed event being discussed.”I already did. Chloroplasts.

You are already playing poker AB, you are constantly bluffing! 🙂 and bluffing is all you will ever have!

Too bad the stakes are far higher than you can imagine,,,

That’s what makes sad!

The Argument from Pascal’s Wager

Excerpt: Most philosophers think Pascal’s Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, “This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it.” That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most skeptical philosophers who ever wrote.

Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new “miracle drug” that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend’s life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn’t it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?

http://www.peterkreeft.com/top.....-wager.htm

Blaise Pascal was a devout Christian and very influential French mathematician and philosopher who contributed to many areas of mathematics. He worked on conic sections and projective geometry and in correspondence with Fermat he laid the foundations for the theory of probability as well as laid the foundation for the science of hydraulics.

moose dr

There are numerous examples of intra-cellular symbiosis and have been recognized from at least 1944 onward. For example intracellular yeast and insect cells where the yeast symbiont provides essential vitamins for the insect. Here’s another one:

Metabolic Interdependence of Obligate Intracellular Bacteria and Their Insect Hosts†

Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. December 2004 vol. 68 no. 4 745-770

BA77, what does a programming language have to do with god?

bornagain77,

Don’t forget that A-B claims his credentials are in in biology and

statistics! So, here’s A-B’s chance.A_B, what’s a reasonable estimate for the odds that bornagain77 exists, given your parameters in 17? Oh, and show your work. “Typos” are no excuse.

Betcha A_B refuses to answer the question! LOL

-Q

Moose Dr,

There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont.

Moose Dr,

There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont.

Moose Dr,

There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont.

Moose Dr,

Evidently there are so many examples WP decided to multiply my post 4x..

AB at 17, you borrowed it and brought it up. Furthermore, you have the background in statistics. You explain it. Right now, though, those of us with even a rudimentary understanding of probability, understand your story telling to be what it is — a red herring.

Really, that specific ovum and that specific sperm, spare us your borrowings if you insist on borrowing such tripe. Or shall we extend it?

Ok, here we go. By your reckoning, it is impossible for anything here today to happen. No meetings, marriages, babies, etc . . . all events count on so much in the past that none of them could have happened just by chance. Is that your position? That nothing can happen? Certainly your proof of the non-existence of poor ol’ BA77 (sorry, BA) extends to us all.

No good? So, now in hoping for those lucky eukaryotes, you insist that since nothing happening now because of such long odds is absurd, it is necessary that everything happens by chance?

((By the way, here I am using the idea of chance in its broadest form including physical laws in all their perceived uniformity.))

But if everything happens by chance, why argue about it?

Folks, if ever there was a larger example of the fallacy of the excluded middle, I can’t think of it.

In claiming chance only, AB has overlooked the fact that “making a claim”, such a peculiarly human endeavor, has little to do with chance at all.

Finally, I will allow that AB has not actually come out and made the argument that chance answers all. But that really is the problem, isn’t it? AB doesn’t clearly state what was voodoo in Behe’s math, he just tells other stories . . .

I’m with Q at 24. I expect to hear nothing from AB on either account.

wd400

true enough!

add kappa particles in paramecium.

Acartia_bogart at #17:

Here you are practically rephrasing the infamous “deck of cards” argument. Frankly, I expected more from your intelligence.

Do you still believe in what you are saying? Because that argument is one of the most stupid reasonings I ever witnessed.

I suppose you should understand the difference between different definitions of partitions in a set, and the computation of the relative probabilities.

So, do you think there is no difference, if I extract a number out of 10000, between the following definitions?

a) The probability of extracting an even number

b) The probability of extracting 3458

c) The probability of extracting a number which is part of the Fibonacci sequence

The idea is, according to how we define the partition, the probability of a positive result is completely different.

If you define a partition after the event, simply by describing the result, the event has obviously already taken place. The probability has meaning only as the probability of getting that same result

again.So, if I have already extracted 3458, the probability of extracting it again is still one in 10000, and the simple fact that it has been extracted does not change that fact.

On the other hand, the probability of extracting “any undefined number whose individual probability would be 1:10000” in one attempt is exactly 1.

So, there is nothing strange in extracting 3458

or25or1862orany other number from 1 to 10000.But if I extract the exact sequence of Fibonacci numbers, I would think there is something strange happening.

Let’s say I extract 20 successive numbers, and they are:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765

Now, the probability of getting the exact Fibonacci sequence in 20 extractions is about 1e-80.

I would seriously consider some non random explanation if I observed that result.

I hope that’s clear.

The ONLY evidence that chloroplasts were once free-living prokaryotes is that they “look like” they coulda been prokaryotes if you look at them just right.

Unfortunately that ain’t science.

Acartia_bogart- The math that Behe used is the same math that population genetics uses. Are you saying that population genetics is vodoo? And exactly what type of math does evolutionism use?

gpuccio

Side topic for more understanding on basic probabilities …

I find this one of the more non-intuitive concepts in probability – thus the gambler’s fallacy.

Yes, if you extracted 3458 again, it was one in 10000 – but I think only because it didn’t match a pre-determined pattern, right? If you wanted 3458 to be extracted in two consecutive events, the probability would be different.

If you had a pool of 100 numbers, each of these would be 1 in 100:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89

But the odds of that sequence would be 1 in 10^11.

Silver Asiatic:

“Yes, if you extracted 3458 again, it was one in 10000 – but I think only because it didn’t match a pre-determined pattern, right?”

Yes, right. The outcome of extracting any number with the same general properties of 3458, that is one of the set:

“any generic number from 1 to 10000 whose individual probability of being randomly extracted would be 1:10000?

has probability 1 in one single extraction (it must necessarily happen).

It’s the same as saying that if you shuffle your cards, one deck of cards will come out. The probability of that specific deck of cards is extremely low, but the probability of a generic deck of cards with individual low probability is 1. That’s why the infamous deck of cards argument is nonsense.

On the contrary, of you specify in advance a specific deck of cards, you will never obtain it in a random attempt. In that case, you have specified a target space which is too small to be empirically found.

“If you wanted 3458 to be extracted in two consecutive events, the probability would be different.”

The probability of a de novo extraction of that pre-specified number twice in two attempts would be 1e-08.

“If you had a pool of 100 numbers, each of these would be 1 in 100:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89

But the odds of that sequence would be 1 in 10^11.”

The probability of a specific series of 11 values out of 100, like the one you suggest, would correspond to 1 : the number of dispositions with repetition (n^k), that is, if I am not wrong, 1e-22.

Tim:

That is not what I am saying. I used that absurd example that the probability of BA77 existing is effectively zero (it is actually 1 because he exists) to show that the low rarity of endosymbionts (which really are not all that rare) cannot be extrapolated to argue that this did not occur with eukaryotes, or that Behe’s 10^20 chloroquine resistance cannot be extrapolated to conclude that complexity can’t evolve.

And just to keep Querius happy,

1) Probability of BA77’s parents hooking up 1/3,000,000,000 x 1/3,000,000,000 ~10^19. But, obviously, the odds of them hooking up are not random events. Not all of the female population is available to all of the male population.

2) So let’s make it more reasonable. Let’s assume that he comes from a city of one million. The the probability would be 1/500000 x 1/500000 ~10^12. It would actually be significantly less than this because the circle of acquaintances that each parent would have would not be 499,999, unless they were each the most popular kids in class.

3) So, to make the math simpler, and to give BA77 a better chance of existence, let’s assume that the probability of his parents hooking up is actually 1. After all, weren’t they destined to meet and fall in love? So, let’s limit it to the probability of the specific sperm and the specific ovum that resulted in our favourite link-blaster. Human female is born with approximately 400000 follicles, each with the potential to produce a viable ovum. But since it takes four follicles to produce a single ovum, let’s call it 1/100,000. Now, the human male produces approximately 1500 sperm cells per second. To keep the numbers, let’s assume that BA77’s father’s prime reproductive years lasted 20 years. If I did my math right, that is ~10^12. So the probability of both getting together is ~10^17.

4) And that is just for the current generation. Keep going back generations and the numbers become staggering.

Here is another calculation, just looking at the fathers’ line. His assumptions are as equally absurd as mine, but it gives you the idea.

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen.....isting.htm

Of course, these are all absurd examples. But that was the point that I was trying to make.

Acartia_bogart- Dr Behe got his “10^20” from a peer-reviewed article. And it appears that other evolutionists have confirmed it.

AB writes . . .

I disagree. Although in a sense you are absolutely correct, the endosymbionts previously mentioned are unlike eukaryotes and thus a strict, numerical extrapolation is unwarranted. However, inferences to the best explanation can be drawn using “Behe’s” math.

(Why is it called “Behe’s 10^20” now that it is peer-reviewed? Let’s just call it the data.)

On the other hand, following Behe, why can’t we draw the scientific inference that for chloroquine resistance, a more complex “answer” has not been, and will not be, found in p falciparum as

evidencethat complexity doesn’t evolve.In the absence of any other scientific example of complexity forming, why the resistance to drawing a conclusion?

I find the evidence presented in Edge of Evolution to be scientifically compelling, don’t you, AB?

I am not asking you to “conclude”. Just to “get started”.

The idea that a bacterium got ingested and turned into a mitochondrion is pretty funny. At least if we assume this occurred as a result of the typical RM+NS, bumbling, trial-and-error process that supposedly drives evolution.

Could it happen via a carefully-orchestrated, highly-specific, tightly-controlled, forward-looking process? Perhaps. But not by Darwinian evolution.

Joe:

Nobody is contesting this. And I am even on record that I commended Behe on much of what he did with this. The voodoo math comes into play when he tries to extrapolate to the evolution of complex traits.

It is extremely strange that Darwinists feel expertly qualified to lecture ID proponents on the math of Darwinism when the fact of the matter is that there is no rigid mathematical foundation to Darwinism in the first place.

Of related note: Researchers have finally developed a mathematical model for molecular biology that has actual predictive power by ignoring the Darwinian ‘historical accidents’ presupposition and using a ‘top down’ physiological perspective instead:

Acartia_bogart:

1- It’s the evolution of complex traits via blind watchmaker processes such as natural selection, drift and neutral substitutions

2- Seeing that there isn’t A) any evidence for it and B) no way to model it, probabilities are all we have and more than you deserve. Meaning the voodoo is on you

Eric- I don’t see why bacteria can’t be derived from eukaryotes-

can evolution make things less complex?– In the word of Rocky, absolutely.A_B, you play an uninformed probability game. The probability of any particular event happening — pretty much zero. It is always easy to find a gazillion considerations that would lead to a different result.

However, all probabilities in the ID world involve two simultaneous events happening. Most usually they are the probability of some particular pattern of mutations occurring

paired withthe ability to perform some meaningful function.You busily calculate the probability of a bunch of junk sitting in a junk-yard in the particular configuration in which it happens to sit. But when that junk proves to be the proverbial 747, a working 747 the calculation must differ radically.

You guys all seem to be making A_B’s point for him.

If you make ultra-specific requirements you get low probabilties. Behe’s math is based on the probability of two specific mutations mutations becoming fixed in a population when the first one is somewhat deleterious. Even if you accept the 10^20 number (which is not an empirical fact or the product of a calculation, just an aside in a paper), do say that it’s relavent to all the ways in which complexity can rise you would have to show that complexity can

onlyarise through such pathways and such ultra-specified outcomes.Otherwise you are playing the same game AB is making fun of.

Oh goody, now wd400 is going to help AB straighten us out on the math.,,, grab some popcorn this ought to be good entertainment,,,

MooseDr:

Except ID has a different definition of simultaneous than the rest of the world.

wd400- The problem is evolutionary biologists don’t have anything to offer that we can actually test pertaining to the evolution of complex protein machinery via differing accumulations of genetic accidents.

And any time you would like to present the evidence that any ole collection of mutations can produce complex protein machinery we would love to see it.

A-b #13

“The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster),….

‘I was wondering when someone would bring Behe’s voodoo statistics into the discussion. But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis?’

———————-

You omitted the ROFL part:

‘…. 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”

—————-

‘But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis?’

Did I say it had anything to do with ‘endosymbiosis’? Or, indeed, the price of fish and chips? I think not.

wd2000

Behe’s 10^20 figure is the number of reproductive events for a novel instance of chloroquine resistance becoming fixed in a population This number was established through observation and Behe works backwards from there to arrive at why it is so rare. The answer, as established in Summers, is primarily because it takes two mutations before any selective advantage occurs. Wishing there was an easier route doesn’t make it so.

Jehu,

It’s a vey off teh cuff estimate in a single paper. Getting an accurate esimate would be quite hard.

But, we can ignore the precise estimate and agree any

specificchange that requires two mutations in a specific order, with the first being deleterious, is quite improbable. Something require two of those scenarios much more so.Others here (and Behe elsewhere in his book) try to extrapolate that fact to conclude increases in complexity or adaptation are

alwaysimprobable. To do that you’d have to prove that complexity canonlyincrease through such pathways.Joe:

Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution

http://www.darwinsmaths.com/

Folks, please notice these two statements by Acartia_bogart:

@17

and

@37

So Acartia_bogart’s figure of 10^19 (which, apparently due to another “typo,” should be 1/10^19 or 10^-19) is actually

ten times greaterthan Mike Behe’s calculation for the probability of the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria! It certainly doesn’t make “Behe’s 10^20 seem like a certainty.” And the math is the same “voodoo” as Behe used! Querius is a pretty craft fellow, no? 😉The result also underscores just how improbable that the evolution of major structures were due to random changes.

-Q

Querius:

“So Acartia_bogart’s figure of 10^19 (which, apparently due to another “typo,” should be 1/10^19 or 10^-19”Nope. No typo. But just basic shorthand. If you actually knew anything about statistics and probability, you would know this.

” is actually ten times greater than Mike Behe’s calculation for the probability of the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria!”A great example of quote mining out of context. Even ignoring the odds of two people hooking up in a moderate sized city (which I mentioned but agreed to ignore) Querius completely ignores the increasing improbabilities with ever generation that you go back in time. Which completely dwarfs the improbability provided by Behe.

Since you are quick to call someone a liar (which, apparently is grounds for being banned from UD, unless, of course, you are an ID supporter), I would like to give Barry another chance to show that he is not a hypocrit

I have not hidden my expertise (only you said ‘credentials’, I never did), but I have never heard what yours are. Care to share? I will expand on mine if you would like. Two degrees in marine biology (hence the passion for tintinnids), with a smattering of statistics (no degree as you keep stating). Twenty years in environmental chemistry (there were no jobs in marine biology, who’d a thunk), and the last 15 years in statistics and chemistry, including, currently, part of an ISO working group drafting an international standard on statistics (ISO 13528, part of TC69, if you would like to investigate).

So, what are your credentials? Or are you afraid to mention them in fear that someone may call you on them based on a typo?

Cheers.

wd400 at #46:

So, just to understand, could you please show how ATP synthase arose without any “ultra-specified outcome”?

Thank you.

Acartia_bogart:

What about my posts #32 and 36?

wd400:

Reference please. I know we do ask for and never receive any evidence that unguided evolution can produce complex protein machinery. Why is that?

Is it unreasonable to find this breathtakingly improbable merger breathtakingly improbable?

Is it more or less unreasonable to find it otherwise?

A_B:

I think I see the problem.

Acartia_bogart,

When you responded to the topic, “Why do we need to make a decision about common descent anyway?” in comment 43, posted on August 5, 2014 at 9:59 pm, you wrote the following:

Let that sink in. This is in direct and obvious conflict with what you wrote in comment 55 above:

and then later in the same post you continued:

But you just stated that you had a couple of credentials! You said that you are a statistician, which implies more than a smattering in the mind of any reasonable person!

Ouch.

Ok, you obviously wrote your post with a sense of frustration, and you may well have the degrees and experience you claim, but I can’t believe you and I don’t believe you. There are three reasons why.

1. Most of your posts here are condescending, disparaging, and lacking any support for your statements. For example, in that same post 43, you wrote the following:

You never supported your accusation, even when asked, which should be easy for anyone claiming to be a “statistician.”

2. I tested you with a simple probability problem and you got it wrong in two ways: the answer, which you claim was a typo (yeah, try that excuse on a midterm), and your fundamental misconception of calculating the probability of simultaneous versus sequential events. Granted some probability calculations can be pretty tricky, but this was not one of those.

3. A lack of any technical detail in your objections and explanations—at least the ones that I read. If you’re passionate about

tintinnids, great! I’d expect to occasionally run across something about them, or some other aspect of marine biology that you studied. Information like that would enrich the dialog here, and I’m sure it would be appreciated. For what it’s worth, I actually purchased a Zeiss stereo zoom microscope when I absolutely could not afford one primarily to go “small game hunting” for what used to be called protozoa, to key small flowers and insects, and occasionally to remove splinters.What can I say? Without any rancor intended, I confess that I feel sorry for you. If you relaxed from your tense, combative style, I think you’d have a more pleasant, enlightening dialog with people that you fundamentally disagree with, and it would be ok.

If you can’t let yourself relax, then go ahead and plaster me with

ad hominems. But at least consider what I said.-Q

Acartia_bogart:

Sorry to repeat myself, but…

What about my posts #32 and 36?

Querius,

Which is exactly what I have. My

credentialsin biology are the ones that are on diplomas. Mycredentialsin statistics were obtained by experience gained through over 30 years of use as part of my education and work experience. My current job has to do with applying statistical procedures to large and small laboratory data sets compiled from over 300 laboratories throughout the world. These are mycredentials.But I did notice that, rather than answer my question, or seriously critique my probability estimates that BA77 exists (other than to say that I was wrong because I said 10^17 rather than 10^-17, even though this was a convention used by

The Great Behe), you jump all over an inconsistency in how I used the wordcredentialsin two different comments, separated by over one month.I have been told by Barry that people who falsely accuse someone of being a liar are banned from posting on UD. Yet, you continue to call me a liar for claiming that I am a biologist and a statistician, all based on a typo. And then every time I comment, you keep bringing this point up. I know that Barry would never ban you from posting on UD because you are a staunch supporter of creationism, but that just demonstrates that his criteria for banning have nothing to do with falsely calling someone a liar.

But getting back to my previous request. I have laid my education and experience on the table for everyone to review. This will allow people to place any of my comments in better context and call me on any that they feel are beyond my knowledge level. Why are you afraid to do the same? If you are going to call me a liar on my stated

credentialsit only seems fair that I be given the same opportunity.Gpuccio

That is why I used that absurd example. This is the same reason why the

fine tuningof the universe argument is wrong, and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of any complexity is also wrong.Obviously, I wasn’t seriously trying to prove that BA77 can’t exist. You are absolutely correct, my back of the napkin was just the probability of a person identical to BA77 occurring again. And, in reality, the probability is much much lower than I indicated.

Acartia_bogart:

The two- your attempt at an analogy and fine-tuning- have nothing in common.

No one does that.

Sorry Joe. I meant to say “

and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of thenatural evolutionof complexity is also wrong”.Acartia_bogart:

The difference between the numbers provided by Beje is that he is assuming no intelegent actor is involved and numbers you provided on the chances of our indvidual existence is that an inteligence IS involved.

gpuccio #36 – thanks for that explanation. My math is a little rusty. That was helpful.

Acartia_bogart:

I am afraid that you still miss the point:

a) If I define a result as “any number from 1 to 10000 which, if pre-specified, would have a 1:10000 probability of being extracted”, then the probability is 1. Any number is part of the defined set.

b) If I define a result by pre-specifying one number, like 3256, that number jas a 1:10000 probability of being extracted (in one attempt).

c) If I define a functional subset of the search space, like: “any number from 1 to 10000 which is part of the Fibonacci sequence”, that subset has a probability of 19:10000 of being extracted in one attempt, and that simple fact does not change, either I pre-define or post-define. The functional specification remains alaways valid, because it depends on an objective property, and it is not a list of the individual results.

d) If I define the result as the exact sequence of the 20 Fibonacci numbers, extracted in 20 attempts in the right order, then that result has a probability of 1e-80 of being found in 20 consecutive extractions.

So, as I have said in my post, if I observed that result I would seriously consider some non random explanation, and that is completely independent from the fact that I may have defined the result before or after observing it.

This is the simple point about ID, and Behe, that you seem not to understand.

As I have said, you are simply recycling the old “deck of cards” argument, which is false and silly. In practice, it just states that what happens in a) (a result of probability 1) is a very improbable result. That is not true, and it is a complete distortion of probability.

gpuccio,

I made one last attempt to appeal to reason with Acartia_bogart with similar results to what you’ve received. I regret the complete waste of time this has turned out to be. Personally, I don’t think A_B has anything higher than a HS diploma and access to the internet.

Feel free to continue, but I’d say you’re also wasting your time.

-Q

#70 Querius

I have noticed that gpuccio has a special gift to explain complex things very patiently and in a very clear manner.

Definitely I lack such ability.

I have learned quite a bit by reading his posts.

Perhaps it’s sad that some folks don’t take advantage of such an opportunity. But that’s out of your and my control, hence there’s nothing we can do to correct that situation, except pray. 🙁

However, I’m glad gpuccio keeps posting his insightful comments, despite the reaction of his interlocutors, because the rest of us, including the lurkers (anonymous visitors), benefit.

Arcatia_bogart:

Was it Behe who pointed out that people who didn’t understand probability arguments should not be critiquing them?

For example:

P(A) where A means “BA77 exists.”

All probabilities are CONDITIONAL. Yet it’s not always the case that the condition is explicitly stated, but it’s UNDERSTOOD to be there.

So to continue:

P(A|A) where A means “BA77 exists” and the conditional is “BA77 exists.” Probability = 1.

P(A|!A) where A means “BA77 exists” and the conditional is that BA77 does not exist. Probability = 0.

Why do my numbers differ so much from those given by A_b?

Sorry Mung, maybe you should read along. I clearly stated that the real probability of BA77 existing was 1. The example I provided was intentionally absurd (which I also mentioned several times) to demonstrate that probability is often used improperly, sometimes innocently, sometimes intentionally.

Dionisio,

Yes, I’m also glad for gpuccio’s ability to explain things and patience in consideration for the casual reader.

I keep getting a picture in my mind of some of the things that Jesus had to say to the religious leaders of his day. For example in John 8:42-47 (NIV), we read:

Yikes!

-Q

#74 Querius

Yes, yikes!

Thank you for quoting that powerful reminder here.

No one else could have said it better than the Prince of peace, Light of the world, Giver of Life, Lord of lords, King of kings.

Still as valid today as it was in the first century of this age of grace.

Rev. 22:21 to you. 🙂

#74 Querius

What is Truth?

Which fits together nicely with

And also in Romans 8 . . .

and while we suffer, all of nature is suffering as well!

Amazing. I expect that the genomic deterioration we currently observe in nature will be fully repaired. Who knows, maybe we’ll be doing the repairing! Wouldn’t that be fabulous! 🙂

-Q

#77 Q

Yes, amazing. 🙂 Soli Deo Gloria.

Thank you for referring to those timely verses.

I believe the restoration will be done by the One Who created all (John 1:3; Hebrews 10:14; Philippians 1:6), Who uniquely claimed to be “VIA, VERITAS, VITA” (John 14:6). We shall enjoy His glorious presence all eternity.

But while we’re still here, in this age of grace, we want to proclaim His good news, so all His sheep hear His voice and turn to Him for salvation.

1 Thessalonians 5:22-24. Rejoice!

🙂

#77 Q

You may check this out:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-514336

🙂