Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Speaking of dodged claims ...
... can anybody please tell me where this is wrong?
Quote:-
"(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:
10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang."
These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
For example, there are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB).
... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB.
The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other specific biomolecules working in highly integrated systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.
Of course, we can show where this is wrong. The problem is that you keep posting as if we haven't already done so.
Dembski's concept of a UPB (Universal Probability Bound) and how the UPB is a problem for natural selection is fundamentally flawed in many ways. So let's have a look at them.
The first problem is that Dembski's basis for the UPB is flawed.
The first factor he uses in its calculation is the number of elementary particles in the observable universe which he claims is 1x10^80. However, regardless of his definition of an elementary particle, his figure is doubly wrong. Firstly, if we were to take hydrogen atoms to be the elementary particles and assume, for the moment, that he is right about the observable universe then he is off by a factor of 10.
You see, the critical density of the universe is 0.85×10−26 kg/m3 which equates to roughly 5 hydrogen atoms per m3. Since the universe has been expanding for 13.7 million years, the radius of the observable universe is 46.6 billion light years. Therefore, the volume of the observable universe (4/3 π r3) is 3.58×1080 m3. Consequently, if hydrogen atoms were the elementary particles then there would be 1.8×1081 of them.
However, Dembski's real mistake here is the use of the observable universe. It should be apparent, even to you JC, that the universe is larger than what we can directly observe. No cosmological model that has relied only on the observable universe has been able to reliably explain what we have observed in astronomical and cosmological experiments. We know from mathematical modelling that the actual universe is at least 250 times greater in size than what we can directly observe:
Applications of Bayesian model averaging to the curvature and size of the Universe
So the first factor is useless.
Then, you have the age factor. While there is no real problem with the logic of this factor it is interesting to note that his figure is off by a factor of almost 50.
Having said all that, the funny thing is that the figure which Dembski ends up with is probably OK. When you do the real math:
Computational capacity of the universe
you find that 10^150 is probably a reasonable estimate. Its just interesting that Dembski gets there by pure dumb luck and not any actual science.
Now, to the real mistake made by the Dembski, the relevance of a Universal Probability Bound to evolution at all. Before we get into details here two things should be highlighted.
1. The formation of proteins and other organic compounds is not determined by or affected by chance and so probability has no relevance to any discussion on protein formation.
2. The formation of proteins in the early universe and their statistical probability is not relevant to a discussion on evolution. This is a matter for abiogenesis which is a wholly separate theory.
OK, on with the details.
1. Sequential macromolecular assembly
Let's assume for a second that creationists are right and that proteins were formed by chance. This still doesn't stop Dembski being wrong. One of the biggest mistakes he makes is in assuming the construction of a protein by the sequential addition of an amino acid.
For comparison let's look at tossing a coin. If you want to generate the following sequence HHHH (H being heads, T being tails) using four coins and you could toss all four coins in 1 minute then you could reasonably expect to generate the sequence above in 8 minutes. However, what if you get sixteen friends to help you, each simultaneously flipping a coin. Now you could generate the above sequence in just 1 minute.
The probability of forming a protein sequence is not just affected by its length but also by the number of trial opportunities. This is where the size of Earth comes into play.
It has been reasonably established that the size of the primordial ocean was in the region of 10^24 litres. Furthermore, if we take a rough average of the number of molecules per unit mass of amino acids (3x10^24 /kg) and a primordial soup amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M, then we should expect no less than about 1 x 1050 potential starting chains. This means that the number of efficient ligases that could be produced even in just 1 year is greater than 10^30. So Dembski's UPB is immediately blown out of the water.
Unlike Dembski's ramblings, these figures are supported not just mathematically but also by experimental results:
A synthetic peptide ligase.
Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces
2. On the search space
One of the other major problems in Dembski's idea of a UPB is the difference between the raw probability of the sequence and the match of the sequence to a given specification. Allow me to explain using one of Dembski's favourite examples, the Caputo case. This centres on a vote rigging allegation against Nicholas Caputo whose job it was to draw ballots to decide who got top billing on election papers. When 40 of the 41 draws turned out in favour of the Democrats, Caputo was tried and was judged to have rigged the ballot with the judge concluding: "confronted with these odds, few persons of reason will accept the explanation of blind chance." However, the Caputo case raises some interesting problems with Dembski's arguments. To see how let's go back to coin tosses. Take the following sequence:
HTHHHTTHTHTHHHHTHHTTTHTTHHHTHTHTHHTTTTHHH
This sequence looks like a fair drawing. When we calculate the probability of the sequence we get (1/2)^41 or 4.5x10^-13 or 1 in 2x10^12. Now let's look at a rigged sequence:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
When we calculate the probability of a rigged sequence we get 4.5x10^-13. The exact same. So it is not the probability of the sequence itself which is relevant but only that which matches the specification. So in testing protein sequences it is not the base probability of creating a 100 unit protein at random that matters but rather how many of these sequences result in useful proteins.
As it turns out quite a lot actually. If we take a 100 unit protein sequence then the sample space is 10^130. However, when we match all the possible sequences against useful proteins we find that 3.8x10^61 alone result in cytochrome C. Therefore even using random assembly we end up with a probability of creating a useful protein of just 1 in 10^69, well within Dembski's bullsh1t UPB.
3. On abiogenesis and creationist chemistry
Another big problem Dembski has is that he's a mathematician and not a biochemist. This leads him to making a huge false assumption in the first place, namely that the early development of organic life involved the synthesis of proteins which we find today. To show graphically what I mean here's the difference between how Dembski thinks life evolved and how the research says it did.
The research that has been conducted in this area has shown the possibility and likelihood that the primordial soup was replete with small chain (~30 mer) peptides which could self-replicate. Again this blows Dembski's UPB out of the water, given that a 32-mer chain even by random assembly has a probability of just 10^40.
The volume of research is so large in fact that it would probably blow your tiny little mind JC. This is a sample of some of the more important papers on the subject.
A self-replicating peptide
Oligonucleotide-directed peptide synthesis in a ribosome- and ribozyme-free system
A multisubunit ribozyme that is a catalyst of and template for complementary strand RNA synthesis
Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network
All in all, we can see that the UPB like the rest of Dembski's work is so profoundly flawed in so many ways that it is a wonder creationists still bother with it. It just goes to show what a joke creationism really is.0 -
-
-
Of course, we can show where this is wrong. The problem is that you keep posting as if we haven't already done so.
Dembski's concept of a UPB (Universal Probability Bound) and how the UPB is a problem for natural selection is fundamentally flawed in many ways. So let's have a look at them.
The first problem is that Dembski's basis for the UPB is flawed.
The first factor he uses in its calculation is the number of elementary particles in the observable universe which he claims is 1x10^80. However, regardless of his definition of an elementary particle, his figure is doubly wrong. Firstly, if we were to take hydrogen atoms to be the elementary particles and assume, for the moment, that he is right about the observable universe then he is off by a factor of 10.
You see, the critical density of the universe is 0.85×10−26 kg/m3 which equates to roughly 5 hydrogen atoms per m3. Since the universe has been expanding for 13.7 million years, the radius of the observable universe is 46.6 billion light years. Therefore, the volume of the observable universe (4/3 π r3) is 3.58×1080 m3. Consequently, if hydrogen atoms were the elementary particles then there would be 1.8×1081 of them.
However, Dembski's real mistake here is the use of the observable universe. It should be apparent, even to you JC, that the universe is larger than what we can directly observe. No cosmological model that has relied only on the observable universe has been able to reliably explain what we have observed in astronomical and cosmological experiments. We know from mathematical modelling that the actual universe is at least 250 times greater in size than what we can directly observe:
Applications of Bayesian model averaging to the curvature and size of the Universe
So the first factor is useless.
Then, you have the age factor. While there is no real problem with the logic of this factor it is interesting to note that his figure is off by a factor of almost 50.
Having said all that, the funny thing is that the figure which Dembski ends up with is probably OK. When you do the real math:
Computational capacity of the universe
you find that 10^150 is probably a reasonable estimate. Its just interesting that Dembski gets there by pure dumb luck and not any actual science.
Now, to the real mistake made by the Dembski, the relevance of a Universal Probability Bound to evolution at all. Before we get into details here two things should be highlighted.
1. The formation of proteins and other organic compounds is not determined by or affected by chance and so probability has no relevance to any discussion on protein formation.
2. The formation of proteins in the early universe and their statistical probability is not relevant to a discussion on evolution. This is a matter for abiogenesis which is a wholly separate theory.
OK, on with the details.
1. Sequential macromolecular assembly
Let's assume for a second that creationists are right and that proteins were formed by chance. This still doesn't stop Dembski being wrong. One of the biggest mistakes he makes is in assuming the construction of a protein by the sequential addition of an amino acid.
For comparison let's look at tossing a coin. If you want to generate the following sequence HHHH (H being heads, T being tails) using four coins and you could toss all four coins in 1 minute then you could reasonably expect to generate the sequence above in 8 minutes. However, what if you get sixteen friends to help you, each simultaneously flipping a coin. Now you could generate the above sequence in just 1 minute.
The probability of forming a protein sequence is not just affected by its length but also by the number of trial opportunities. This is where the size of Earth comes into play.
It has been reasonably established that the size of the primordial ocean was in the region of 10^24 litres. Furthermore, if we take a rough average of the number of molecules per unit mass of amino acids (3x10^24 /kg) and a primordial soup amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M, then we should expect no less than about 1 x 1050 potential starting chains. This means that the number of efficient ligases that could be produced even in just 1 year is greater than 10^30. So Dembski's UPB is immediately blown out of the water.
Unlike Dembski's ramblings, these figures are supported not just mathematically but also by experimental results:
A synthetic peptide ligase.
Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces
2. On the search space
One of the other major problems in Dembski's idea of a UPB is the difference between the raw probability of the sequence and the match of the sequence to a given specification. Allow me to explain using one of Dembski's favourite examples, the Caputo case. This centres on a vote rigging allegation against Nicholas Caputo whose job it was to draw ballots to decide who got top billing on election papers. When 40 of the 41 draws turned out in favour of the Democrats, Caputo was tried and was judged to have rigged the ballot with the judge concluding: "confronted with these odds, few persons of reason will accept the explanation of blind chance." However, the Caputo case raises some interesting problems with Dembski's arguments. To see how let's go back to coin tosses. Take the following sequence:
HTHHHTTHTHTHHHHTHHTTTHTTHHHTHTHTHHTTTTHHH
This sequence looks like a fair drawing. When we calculate the probability of the sequence we get (1/2)^41 or 4.5x10^-13 or 1 in 2x10^12. Now let's look at a rigged sequence:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
When we calculate the probability of a rigged sequence we get 4.5x10^-13. The exact same. So it is not the probability of the sequence itself which is relevant but only that which matches the specification. So in testing protein sequences it is not the base probability of creating a 100 unit protein at random that matters but rather how many of these sequences result in useful proteins.
As it turns out quite a lot actually. If we take a 100 unit protein sequence then the sample space is 10^130. However, when we match all the possible sequences against useful proteins we find that 3.8x10^61 alone result in cytochrome C. Therefore even using random assembly we end up with a probability of creating a useful protein of just 1 in 10^69, well within Dembski's bullsh1t UPB.
3. On abiogenesis and creationist chemistry
Another big problem Dembski has is that he's a mathematician and not a biochemist. This leads him to making a huge false assumption in the first place, namely that the early development of organic life involved the synthesis of proteins which we find today. To show graphically what I mean here's the difference between how Dembski thinks life evolved and how the research says it did.
The research that has been conducted in this area has shown the possibility and likelihood that the primordial soup was replete with small chain (~30 mer) peptides which could self-replicate. Again this blows Dembski's UPB out of the water, given that a 32-mer chain even by random assembly has a probability of just 10^40.
The volume of research is so large in fact that it would probably blow your tiny little mind JC. This is a sample of some of the more important papers on the subject.
A self-replicating peptide
Oligonucleotide-directed peptide synthesis in a ribosome- and ribozyme-free system
A multisubunit ribozyme that is a catalyst of and template for complementary strand RNA synthesis
Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network
All in all, we can see that the UPB like the rest of Dembski's work is so profoundly flawed in so many ways that it is a wonder creationists still bother with it. It just goes to show what a joke creationism really is.
Oh god I missed you.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement