In article <932a1h$i0l$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>,
zOz <wissenschaftskritik at my-deja.com> wrote:
> [ Extended version of my previous critique ]
>> Extracts from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html :
>> | Problems with the creationist "it's so improbable" calculations:
>> The genuine problems are rather on the neo-Darwinian side. BTW,
> I'm an uncompromising evolutionist (i.e. I'm convinced of a
> continuous emergence of the world and of life).
Snip
You seem to be repeating yourself. Everyone else who counts is also
convinced of the continuous emergence of life over many billions of years
on this planet. Before you go off on this rant again you have to
demonstrate that the evolution of extant life forms and the theories
formed to account for this diversity are dependent on our understanding
how abiogenesis happens. I don't know of a single working theory of the
evolution of existing species that is dependent on understanding
abiogenesis. Please demonstrate that our not understanding abiogenesis
in anyway affects the study of how, say, primates evolved from a common
ancestral mammal. If you can do this, you may have some point.
You may also try to counter the arguments against your initial post.
Like your assumption of independence when you, obviously, can't assume
it.
I'd also like to see your calculations for the probability of the
existence of some designer that could make your impossible assumptions
possible. Factor in the fact that we have no experimental evidence that
some designer exists, and that we do have experimental evidence that the
chemical reactions necessary for life can happen. I'm sure that you will
agree that you have to factor in the experimental evidence that
abiogenesis is possible, and the lack of equivalent evidence that the
designer even exists. Wouldn't you say that the probability of the
existence of your designer must be less than the probability that
abiogenesis occurred by natural means? I know that it is impossible for
you to make meaningful calculations when you have no idea about the
parameters (due to lack of evidence), but this does not seem to stop you
from making a hash out of your probability calculations for abiogenesis.
Turn your analysis on itself and tell us what you come up with. You
know, if to evolve a designer you needed to start with 10 cosmic
particals of N dimensions what is the probability that you would evolve a
designer of X complexity, in the course of Y time units capable of
everything you attribute to it. My guess is that it is less than 10^-
60.;-)
Ron Okimoto
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/