I figure a more thorough dissection is in order. Rather than simply list your numerous errors, I will go through step by step and point them out.
Hmmm....Well let’s suppose we want to asemble a protein that's 200 hundred amino acids long.
This is a big one right off the bat. 200 amino acids long seems, well, arbitrary. Is this chain necessary for anything? Justification is needed
Now mother nature has decided she only likes’ left handed’ amino acids. But there is no logical / blind/ random/ Darwinian reason that she should. Still she DOES. So if this is made spontaneously in some organic soup...we can assign the probability of left handed vs. right handed as . 5....
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong,
You could not be more wrong if you tried.
You have fallen into the same trap creationists do time and time again.
'Well, we don't know why this happened, but lets assign an arbitrary probability'
At the very least, justification is in order.
So right away we need to multiply ( .5 ) ' all left' times ( .5 ) two hundred times , which will most assuredly be a vanishingly small probability ( cause a single right handed molecule would mess up the works ! )
And this bit contains the single largest bit of erronous assumptions of your entire 'calculation'
1. the formation of a molecule could not be considered a single event. No chemical reaction produces a single molecule. This calculation turns a single molecule into an event
2. The fomation of molecules are not independent. Why should they be? Again, molecules form en masse.
3. Why should the molecules decompose immediately if they do not react?
4. Molecules undergo dynamic equilibrium. As a result, some of these molecules are breaking down, which you have failed to take into account.
5. How would a right handed molecule mess up anything?
6. Time and area have not been factored in, invalidating this calculation
But of course that’s just the start of the trouble for Darwinism ( I’d do the math but I’m too lazy, + don’t have a calculator handy ) . However 1/2 ( one half ) to the exponent 200 would be a damn damn small/ astronomically miniscule probability...take my word for it.
That it is.
Unfortunately for you, its wholely irrelevant to the chances of abiogenesis (which is unrelated to darwinism to begin with) and of natural selection.
course we're still not nearly there...cuz the organic amino acids used by mother nature also come in 20 different varieties, and these too have to line up ' just right' ....So to the above minuscule probability...we have to multiply ( .05 ) which is the same as saying one in twenty odds... so ( .05 ) times itself 200 times over ( 200 amino acids in our protein remember ) then times our original ' miniscule number' , would give us a BALL PARK figure
Eh, nope.
You wouldn't even be in the same order of magnitude.
You have made the exact same assumptions outlined above.
But even that won’t do it. Cuz proteins come in 3d arrays of amino acids which must be precisely folded / shaped...Often this requires specific enzymes. But even that wont do it, cuz were assuming that all these amino acids would be just lying around in the primordial soup in abundance/ in the same proximity. And this too would defeat astronomical improbabilities . As would the odds that all these amino acid chains would remain stable. Normally ribosomes are needed for this assemblage of amno acids, + we also normally need RNA/ DNA to serve as the blueprints
Now we return to your initial demand of a chain 200 molecules long from 'nothing'
Unreasonable, and an entirely self serving number as has ben demonstrated by yourself. There is a reason a claim of rising complexity is made by those who support abiogenesis
However, there is one bit I would like mention. Ok, it's admittedly not so little
This is not Darwinism.
Abiogenesis is not darwinism.
BUT outside the shelter / safe environs of living cells how would so many complex organic molecules ever remain stable/ viable ? Certainly the Miller Experiement , which has been severely discredited even by mainstream scientists , couldn't come close to achieving it. Miller could only manage a few paltry amino acids. and his primordial soup ( so experts contend ) didn't actually represent conditions in the prebiotic atmosphere.
Old claim.
Addressed by later experiments, results were still the same. Your point is moot.
Still not darwinism,
Hmmm...... I am seeing a pattern here.
Ah, thats right, you seem think abiogenesis is the same thing as Darwinism.
Spontaneous proteins again would have seemed ' for most experts' ( neigh all when pressed to submit probability calculations )
Amittedly, I can’t give u an actual probability based on my own calculations...vis a vis a single protein being spontaneously generated...but I did provide the basis for a rough ball park calculation...Even I know the odds against seem beyond astronomical
BUT * NB * I NEVER claimed to be able to do this calculation myself. So I dont need to ' SHUT UP' All I said was that expert Mathematicians have calculated the odds, even over billions of years, to be vanishingly Small .
Ah, now that's cheating.
I never said you needed to calculate it yourself. I just said show it.
So please stop dancing around and cite the expert which made such a calculation. Given that 'most, neigh all' experts agree with you, it should be an easy and insignificant task to perform.
To my knowledge not a single Darwinist has ever refuted the calculations of those mathematicians at Wistar and elsewhere who steadfastly refute Darwinism, Nor have any provided any parallele mathematical models yeilding any more positive ( for Darwinism ) results.
Your 'probability models' for abiogenesis are worthless.
We do not need to provide an alternative model to show the idiocy of yours. The onus is on you to get us to reject the null.
The null, in this case, is the default position of
P(A)=1
Silly me ....I assumed cuz so many staunch Darwinists/ Materialists act so smug here...that u'd all be well aware of this decades old Wistar controversay...Me thinks I over estimated ur knowlege base...my mistake
Silly me, I assumed that you would simply admit to your erronous comment and leave, like you did another thread.
OK Here’s a far easier thought experiment...
Ah good, I had so much trouble keeping up with your fallaciousness. (Is that even a word? Oh well, it is now)
Darwinism_Is_Impossible !
Ooooh.
Now that is an experiment.
Oh wait
I have a shiny nickel saying that whatever comes up next has no bearing to Darwinism
I once heard tell of a maverick scientist who put a series of letters, along with spaces and a period ( similar to scrabble squares ) into a hat. Aligned correctly the squares spelled out the phrase ‘Darwinism is impossible.’ This same scientist calculated the odds of drawing these squares in perfect order ( once randomly mixed ) to be 24 times 23 times 22 etc.... on down to 2. For those with a mathematical background, this can be expressed as 24 factorial, which is a really big number.
Ah, so the probability of randomly drawing out 'Darwinism is Impossible' from a hat is quite low then?
Golly, who would have thought?
And somebody owes me a shiny nickel.
The man next proceeded to divide this number , by the number of seconds in a year, and subsequently by the number of years ( about 13 billion +/- 2 ) estimated as the age of the universe. He determined that by drawing squares at random, at one per second, and then starting all over, every time an incorrect square was chosen ( which corresponds to natural selection ) on average, it would take over 1.5 million times the age of the cosmos, to finally correctly spell out the phrase ‘ Darwinism_ is_impossible.’- just once.
Oooh...
So sorry, but your answer is.....
Incorrect. Do try again.
6.20448402 × 10^23
That is 24 factorial. Rather large, don't ya think?
Ah, but the number of seconds in a billion years is rather big.
3.1556926 × 10^16 to be exact.
Then we multiply by thirteen to get
4.10240038 × 10^17
Ooooh. It seems your calculation is falling apart.
Alpha levels feel sad, because you have neglected them.
And lets not forget Blaise Pascal, who is spinning like a top in his grave due to this butchery of probability theory. Probability ranges from zero to 1 inclusive for starters. Next is your '1.5 million times the age of the cosmos' bit of ****.
Please, please, please, please, please, please at least learn how probability is used before declaring such [insert degrading word as seen fit]. It should be obvious from the calculations where you pulled that number (take a glance at the scientific notation). Unfortunately, all it shows is an inability to perform rudimentary calculations combined with an inability to properly interpret them
The same scientist asserted that many problems in bio-molecular complexity, such as those required to produce humming birds wings, mosquito proboscises, or giraffe’s necks, each appear to have defeated far greater odds, in almost run of the mill fashion. The point he was trying to make ( unless I missed it ) is that based purely on random mutation and natural selection, ‘ Darwinism_ i-s_ i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e-!’
Now, while my previous retorts have been long winded, this one will be short, and to the point.
This 'scientist' pulled a model out of his rectum and then had the gall to claim that a basic permutation algorithim could accurately model a complex self modifying system.
It seems I hit the word barrier.
