While the probability argument has its place in a discussion regarding the origin of life, I am not asserting that here. Rather, what I am saying is that there are insurmountable problems with a naturalistic development of the pathways necessary for an abiogenesis event to occur. I presented a question earlier in this thread asking what came first; RNA, DNA, or a protein. The lack of responses demonstrates the validity of my claim here.
First off, you asserted to schnozzola that "likelihood of (abiogenesis) occurring is about as close to zero as you can get." Sure sounds like an argument from probability to me, even though you are almost certainly not qualified to evaluate the probability of abiogenesis. Second, you have so far not given any real details on or evidence relating to those "insurmountable problems"; you have merely asserted that they exist, which is meaningless. Repeating a claim does not make it any more true. Third, a lack of scientific knowledge about something, such as your "which came first" question, doesn't demonstrate the validity of any counter-claims you or anyone else might make. Indeed, this is a basic precept of science - if we don't know something, we keep looking until we find out, instead of making unsupported and unsupportable assumptions about it.
I erred by not being a little more specific as to what I was getting at so your comments are justified and accurate. I apologize. What I was trying to convey is that the chemical bonding forces dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry contain no instructions to form the necessary sequence of amino acids so that the type of life sustaining protein folding occurs. So, where did the specified sequencing come from? It is unexplainable.
The "lack of instructions" you refer to is totally meaningless when it comes to chemistry. No chemical reaction requires instructions in order to react in a given way, whether it's simple or complex. In fact, your statement about the "lack of instructions" demonstrates an assumption on your part, that biology is too 'complex' to happen without preexisting instructions. That unless something else provides the "specified sequencing", it cannot happen. Your inability to explain it proves nothing except that you cannot explain it. It certainly does not prove that it could not have happened as you keep suggesting.
The birthday problem has been around for awhile. I don’t remember exactly but I think it was somewhere around 20 people needed for a 50% probability???? I know this problem is intended to demonstrate that the number of people is much much less than most people assume.
Again, I am not arguing probabilities. Maybe some other time in another thread. Suffice it to say that some of the probability arguments are legitimate and others are not.
The actual point of the birthday problem is to demonstrate that most people don't understand how probability works well enough to make accurate calculations about it. I mean, if something as relatively straightforward as the birthday problem consistently leads people who don't know better to come up with a wrong answer, then imagine how much more difficult trying to calculate the probability of something like abiogenesis would be, especially since we don't even have all of its parameters worked out yet. The point being, any declaration of its probability is almost certainly wrong, and in a lot of cases, laughably wrong.
You are incorrect. If the design inference can demonstrate that the information contained in a biological structure has functionality, complexity, and specificity, then it has produced evidence for the existence of an intelligence as the source. It is not proof of an intelligence but it is evidential of one. Asserting that the identification of the intelligent source is necessary to validate the evidence is a straw man.
You are the one who is incorrect, I'm afraid. Neither functionality, complexity, nor specificity serve as evidence for the existence of an intelligence as their source. Indeed, as we know from our own experience designing things, it's entirely possible to design things that are not functional, not complex, and not specific. Furthermore, we know that things in nature can be functional (like how carbon dioxide and other gases trap heat in an atmosphere), complex (like climate), and specific (like complex chemical compounds). So the inference that the presence of those things represents design somehow is wrong. Because of that, asserting that some intelligence is the source of biological life without providing evidence to support that such an intelligence actually exists is not tenable.
intelligent design abiogenesis must be able to answer the objections of critics. By simply saying that something looks designed began but having no way to tell us what to look for in the way of a designer method or methods of design pathway, it makes it impossible to answer critics, which is the worst possible result for anything that seeks to consider itself science. In order for something to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable, and intelligent design abiogenesis fails at both.
I am not amused, especially since I have never argued that abiogenesis is a certainty like you have with design. The fact is that science does not claim to know just exactly how abiogenesis might have worked, and thus various people are working on it and coming up with new hypotheses to test, because we haven't yet worked it out. What have intelligent design advocates done? Made bad argument after bad argument after bad argument, all the while ignoring the necessity for actual evidence, if not outright writing it off through sophistry. Intelligent design isn't even a hypothesis, because it doesn't make predictions that can be falsified. Especially you, BibleStudent, who argues that your god is the "intelligent designer" and thus that you do not have to provide evidence because he used some unidentifiable and unexplainable divine power to create life.
Given the choice between scientists who at least try to figure out how to explain things and how to eventually do them ourselves, and people like you who assert that we shouldn't bother because a god did it and we shouldn't hope to be able to do it ourselves someday, I'll choose the scientists every time. At least they're making the effort, and although many of them end up being wrong, it's through getting things wrong that we figure out how to do them right eventually. And we find out things, often by accident, in the process of getting all those things wrong too.
Disprove it? What scientific evidence do you have that could disprove it? You have repeatedly stated that science does not offer ‘proof’ so if you are switching gears on me now and saying that science can disprove something then I would like to see your ‘proof.’
You're the one who keeps talking about proving and disproving things. I was describing your behavior as it comes across to me, which you pretty much confirmed just now by eagerly jumping all over my use of the word 'disproved' as it pertained to your own behavior.
This is a substantially incorrect statement. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum has never been debunked. If you are buying into the refuted argument that the type III secretory system nullified the flagellum as an ‘irreducibly complex’ system then I suggest you need to do some additional research:
The whole paragraph that follows is nothing but an attempt to claim that because bacteria used the various structures that went into a flagellum in other ways, that the flagellum is still somehow "irreducibly complex". It continues to make the unwarranted and unverifiable assumption that things like a bacterial flagellum are analogous to machines designed and made by humans, demonstrated by the bad analogy about how a motorcycle motor being able to power a blender doesn't prove that the motor evolved into a motorcycle.
Indeed, the fallacious nature of the argument is illustrated by the fact that we know and can easily observe that motorcycles are designed and constructed. We have master blueprints for them, we have methodologies to determine the best methods for constructing them, and we have the factories that we use to mass-produce them. Yet we do not have the master blueprints for a bacterial flagellum, we do not have the methodologies used to determine the best methods for constructing them, and we don't even have the factories which would mass-produce them.
Intelligent design advocates would presumably argue that DNA is the blueprint and the organism itself is the factory. However, DNA is not a master blueprint; it is a working blueprint that gets changed by mutations (usually bad or neutral, occasionally good). Indeed, mutations happen so frequently that it isn't surprising at all that something like the type III secretory system could have had something added on to it which didn't help it become a better secretory system but didn't affect it badly enough to keep it from surviving, and then further mutations gave the new system different functionality instead (that of a flagellum). Incidentally, another reason why the attempted refutation you posted doesn't work; not only did it start with a bad assumption and then follow it with a bad analogy, but it didn't even answer the actual point made by Miller when he showed that various structures that went into the flagellum had actual functionality of their own. Instead, it stated that because there was no complete evolutionary path provided, that it didn't actually mean anything.
But that's false. You don't need to provide a complete evolutionary path to falsify the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum, because irreducible complexity depends on the assumption that a complex enough biological organ will not work unless all of its pieces are in place. So when you can show that the individual pieces have their own functions and can work on their own, it contradicts the whole idea of requiring those pieces to be pre-assembled into that biological organ, provided the organism can survive without that organ.
There are additional refutations available if you are interested.
I hope that wasn't your best 'refutation', because I wasn't impressed at all.
By the way, I don't have any problems if you want to speculate about intelligent design. There's nothing wrong with that. But in order to go anywhere from there, you need evidence to support it. Not statements that if something has functionality, complexity, and specificity, it somehow supports the "design inference" even though it doesn't, and not 'predictions' that were already known before they were ever stated.