The Beginning of Life (priest, communion, versus, verses)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should read it Harry because you have posted enough errors about it here already and for those who actually took the time to read the paper know you are promoting error after error.
The first thing I saw was that there is an answer to this paper that will be published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 507, 21 December 2020, Pages 110457. You can read it here. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...12X?via%3Dihub
First problem, this is just talking about specified complexity. Unless it is using a different definition of specified, you have the problem that every single complex structure in isolation is highly specified, which does not lead to intelligence.
Problem 2, the paper is arguing against chance (!C), which in Bayesian terms means everything else that is not chance. That includes ID, aliens AND evolution.
Problem 3, and I am still reading the introduction - "Fine-tuning and design are related entities." This is only true for specific definitions of 'fine tuned', so immediately we have question begging.
A = fine tuned
Theta = theory
Problem 4, they are using A for fine tuned and low probability of chance, where fine tuned can reference other options. See problem 2. A should be one option, so they have a false dichotomy here. Ironically they then talk about abductive reasoning, which accounts for the probability of all other options.
Problem 5, they are discussing the Anthropic Principle, which is 1) irrelevant here, 2) argues against a designer (which must also be fine tuned), 3) is just an opinion, 4) is question begging using a false statement (Since multiverse hypotheses do not predict fine-tuning for this particular universe any better than a single universe hypothesis, it follows that multiverse hypotheses are not plausible explanations for fine-tuning), 5) uses phrases like machines, and 6) references Behes non-existent evidence as if it existed. And they were doing so well.
At last, the main results.
Problem 6, randomly selecting a rare option ("ATP binding proteins from a random sample of sequence space regardless of the fold") from a very large pool of possibilities is 1) just fishing for a large, improbable number, and 2) has nothing to do with "Darwinian" processes.
Problem 7, plugging garbage the data from problem 6 in to Bayes theorem produces garbage output. And I have only read 1/3 of the paper.
I will read the rest after lunch, but so far you have fallen at the first fence.
thats all fine and dandy ... lets actually apply the scientific method to our choices.
deity
pantheist
living universe
non living universe
nothing more
I do not have to make a claim.
add any others.
I know, the people that really need to called on it are hiding from actually doing this. They feel it hurts the war on religion and is a strawman if we are fighting religion every second of every day.
thats all fine and dandy ... lets actually apply the scientific method to our choices.
deity
pantheist
living universe
non living universe
nothing more
I do not have to make a claim.
add any others.
I know, the people that really need to called on it are hiding from actually doing this. They feel it hurts the war on religion and is a strawman if we are fighting religion every second of every day.
Ranking on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best choice, I'd rank as follows:
deity 1
pantheist 2
living universe (not sure what this means, but there is life in the universe, so partially true, 5)
non living universe (not sure what this means, but there is non-life in the universe, so partially true, 5)
nothing more (than what?)
I do not have to make a claim 10
Ranking on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best choice, I'd rank as follows:
deity 1
pantheist 2
living universe (not sure what this means, but there is life in the universe, so partially true, 5)
non living universe (not sure what this means, but there is non-life in the universe, so partially true, 5)
nothing more (than what?)
I do not have to make a claim 10
add any others.
The universe 10
We must've had the same math teacher? Those are approximately the same numbers/ranks I would assign.
Problem 8 before I start reading, note we are talking about complex proteins AS THEY EXIST NOW. No one is arguing complex proteins formed AS THEY EXIST NOW.
Now to continue using the scientific method.
Problem 9. Statements like "Using such estimates, the proteins of life are found to be specific kinds of events with low probability" are deliberately misleading. Low probability of what? All this paper has shown so far is the low probability of finding a rare protein in a random search, not the probability of that protein evolving.
Problem 10, relying on Axe said something in a book (not a science paper), therefore what Axe said in 2016 must be true while ignoring the many, many other biologists who do not recognize this alleged improbability of evolution. Using books is bad form in science papers.
Problem 11, Koonin's philosophical paper and another book. Also relying on a specific RNA origin while ignoring other possibilities, so once again just fishing for a large improbability number. If they can use Koonin's figure of 10 to the power of 1018, I can point to McFadden's calculation of 10 to the power of 41 (which in cosmic terms would be inevitable).
Problem 12, Behe's non-existent irreducible complexity evidence again.
Problem 13, Dembski.
Quickly scrolling past more dubious sources we get problem 14, “irreducible complexity” (Michael Behe), and “specified complexity” (William Dembski), both of which have no scientific merit.
In conclusion this is just misusing actual (and irrelevant) data, ignoring science using more probable values, and using refuted creationist science.
Problem 8 before I start reading, note we are talking about complex proteins AS THEY EXIST NOW. No one is arguing complex proteins formed AS THEY EXIST NOW.
Now to continue using the scientific method.
Problem 9. Statements like "Using such estimates, the proteins of life are found to be specific kinds of events with low probability" are deliberately misleading. Low probability of what? All this paper has shown so far is the low probability of finding a rare protein in a random search, not the probability of that protein evolving.
Problem 10, relying on Axe said something in a book (not a science paper), therefore what Axe said in 2016 must be true while ignoring the many, many other biologists who do not recognize this alleged improbability of evolution. Using books is bad form in science papers.
Problem 11, Koonin's philosophical paper and another book. Also relying on a specific RNA origin while ignoring other possibilities, so once again just fishing for a large improbability number. If they can use Koonin's figure of 10 to the power of 1018, I can point to McFadden's calculation of 10 to the power of 41 (which in cosmic terms would be inevitable).
Problem 12, Behe's non-existent irreducible complexity evidence again.
Problem 13, Dembski.
Quickly scrolling past more dubious sources we get problem 14, “irreducible complexity” (Michael Behe), and “specified complexity” (William Dembski), both of which have no scientific merit.
In conclusion this is just misusing actual (and irrelevant) data, ignoring science using more probable values, and using refuted creationist science.
And I did not even need to use any Bayes.
People don't actually expect their opinion to be fairly scrutinized to any real degree, and even if pneuma did have any such expectation, I think you have more than fairly scrutinized all this well beyond anyone's expectations. No doubt you are happy with how your English has been improving as well...
People don't actually expect their opinion to be fairly scrutinized to any real degree, and even if pneuma did have any such expectation, I think you have more than fairly scrutinized all this well beyond anyone's expectations.
Thank you. But my muscles needed a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
No doubt you are happy with how your English has been improving as well...
I was, until I had to change brake to break above. But I am now confident enough that before Corona, I was learning so that I could take the English C2 exam.
I don’t think my posts represent true debating. True debating is not possible on a free-for-all discussion forum like C-D.
I don’t have any experience participating with structured debate but I’m willing to give it a try. Do you have any structured debate experience?
Nope. And have no interest in it. You do realize in many formal debates people are given a position to take, often not the position they actually hold?
Nope. And have no interest in it. You do realize in many formal debates people are given a position to take, often not the position they actually hold?
IWMN: “Phetaroi, would like to have a structured debate with me?”
IWMN: “Phetaroi, would like to have a structured debate with me?”
Phetaroi: ...
You're right. Because I (and all the posters in this forum) have suffered through your posts for several months now. Now why don't you go back and sort and file your secret reports and prepare your next cross examination for the uninitiated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I am now confident enough that before Corona, I was learning so that I could take the English C2 exam.
