Fun Science Questions with Unbelievable Answers

Oops! Merwen asked if Tinker Toys were designed. HER COMMENT reminded me of the diagrams (designs) I have long stored in my computer, and I pulled them out for another fun science observation... at least to SOME people. I set no "trap" and your statement, "trying to get me to admit that hemoglobin is statistically impossible" is dead wrong. Human hemoglobin is HARDLY "impossible." Its naturalistic synthesis is impossible, whether or not you agree. Suppose that a few hundred orders of magnitude of sequences are prohibited for thermodynamic or structural considerations. Hundreds of orders of magnitude, subtracted from 10^747. Let's suppose that "only" 10^300 sequences are in the realm of possible sequences. 1 chance in 10^300 gives our hypothetical spaceman 10^250 or so solar systems full of sand to search in his one and only try to pick out that unique grain. You don't have to "admit" anything whatsoever. I am simply bringing out some little known or expressed considerations which I have personally examined as carefully as possible, and suggested that those of Darwin's persuasion tackle a problem such as this, instead of just parroting the usual
"A>B>C>D ! So there !"

 

These probabilities assume a memoryless system or the synthesis of hemoglobin all at once. Neither of these scenarios are likely true. Hemoglobin evolved over time. The cells they evolved from already had parts of the animo acid sequences stored for other functions. Thus, you cannot simply multiply the probabilities out because they are not independent events once part of the sequence is stored. The more correct way would be to determine the conditional probability based on related amino acid sequences. So if you assume that they just instantly popped into existence from nothing the probably is quite low, but if you assume some form of evolutionary process the probability is much higher. Thus, it is not an argument against evolution. Not to mention, the arguments made by Quantum Nerd about what the actual probabilities are.

 

There need not be any "laws of the universe". All entropy is based on is probability. The "law" is just that the macroscopic system with the largest number of configurations emerges s the most stable on. Whether this is a gas expanding into the whole volume accessible to it, rather than bunching up in one corner of the vessel, or a low-entropy protein sequence catalyzing heat production in the surroundings doesn't make a difference.

 

The bolded line is your hypothesis, without ANY proof whatsoever, except showing some large numbers. As to a few hundred orders of magnitude sequences destabilized, how do you come up with this number? Here is the idea of the folding funnel that summarizes the problem (note the native state of lowest energy?):



The same concept probably holds for sequence evolution, with less energy differences, so evolution takes longer than folding.

Let me ask you these questions:

1) If hemoglobin (and the billions of other proteins in all species) are created by intelligent design, this process requires work. Where does the energy come from to do this work?

2) Where are the blueprints stored for the design plans? Where does the energy come from from storing it? How much energy is needed to store the blueprints of even one human being, let alone knowing the location of all atoms in a human at any point in time, as an all knowing creator would need to do?

I shouldn't really get into this, since I don't have a dog in this fight. I am an agnostic rather than an atheist, still go to church sometimes and don't resent it.

I am just puzzled at the need of the Christians to refute Science, especially on this subforum. Maybe there should be a "creationist" subforum, but then I would assume that the "science" subforum would be vacated.

 

That's not true of the chemical elements. They have specific structures, weights, charges, and qualities.

Did you ever have a course in chemistry or physics?

 

I teach chemistry at the university level, thank you very much.

Of course, my statement was an oversimplification.

But it still holds true that probability ALWAYS dictates the direction of a process. Look at nuclear fusion. At first glance prohibited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, since you reduce the number of particles and, thus number of configurations accessible to the system. However, this is overcompensated by the heat flow to the surroundings, resulting in a large entropy increase. That's why fusion is spontaneous for elements with lower mass than iron.

The underlying factor of processes is ALWAYS probabilistic, i.e. increase in the number of configurations possible for the universe.

 

Dukes ...
I have a job for you ..
-------------
Pick up the gloves, axes, saws ...

The pay will be small, but eat well butet ...

 

Where did the energy come from to create all matter, and all energy, and all of natural law? The very question answers itself. "Nowhere" is not the answer.

DNA

I believe it was Thomas Edison or some other very smart fellow who said mankind does not know a fraction of 1% of what there is to know.
Research on every conceivable subject has been going on and continues all over the world, at a cost of trillions of dollars. We do not know, and can never know, all that we seek to know, and you have the temerity to ask me about the whys and wherefores of God? You ask an obviously impossible question. I cannot know and neither can anybody else, anywhere. Please go to YouTube and watch A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox.
Perhaps he will answer some of your questions.

You certainly argue as if you have a dog in this fight.
You are squarely on the side of biologists and atheists who profess the great nihilism. Nothing made everything and it all turned out so very nicely, n'est-ce pas?

Your dishonesty is extremely biased and unintelligent. Nobody is "refuting" science, which of course you misspelled. First you claimed not to have a dog in this fight, and then you expressed the usual Talking Point atheists repeat so condescendingly, so erroneously.

I for one am sick and tired of liberals, atheists, and *intellectuals* spouting the pretentious Big Lie that conservatives and Christians reject science, or know nothing about science.

 

Thanks for displaying your real motives in this thread for anyone to see.

As I said, I am an agnostic. The nihilist world view of the meaning of life being the increase of entropy production is not something I love, but I have come to accept due to my studying of the facts and due to being a realist.

My mother recently passed away. My 7 year old daughter (who didn't know my mother well) told me not to be sad because I'll see her again in heaven. I would love nothing more than to wholeheartedly agree with my daughter, but as a realist I can't. So, I'd rather stick with observable facts and explanations provided by Science. But who knows, when it is my time to go, maybe I'll fall back to Pascal's wager.

But, I guess you have already labeled me as a hating atheist who wants nothing more than destroy Christians with condescending Science, without knowing anything about me. That's the beauty of discussion forums, people just get shoved into the conservative/liberal boxes or atheist/Christian boxes without fail.

 

I got a maths question for everyone,

At a rate of 15 members per 230 posts, how long before ChemEngineer runs out of people to talk to?

 

I repeat, my "real motive" was to point out some fun facts. I said that from the outset, I later repeated it and explained that Marwen asked if Tinker Toys were designed. I did not prompt Marwen to ask that question. However it did remind me of the two schematics (designs) for a NEC monitor and a living cell. I said that before, and I repeat it now. This thread "evolved" if you will, following the greatest probabilistic line. Please stop repeating your cynical and entirely inaccurate imaginings.

You are putting YOUR words in MY mouth. Is that how you conduct yourself when teaching? Do you put your words in the mouths of your colleagues when you have a disagreement? You said you were agnostic. I am familiar with the term. I have seen you posit quite a bit of intelligent remarks, but now you have put yourself firmly in the corner of Charles Darwin, a terribly ignorant fellow whose claim to fame has been challenged and discredited by paleontology, genome comparisons, biochemical considerations, and statistics. *Selection* is a tautology. Organisms which produce the most offspring... produce the most offspring. How enlightening. It says nothing, but you defend it while claiming not to have a "dog in the fight."

While walking yesterday, I considered your complaint that 10^747 is far too many different sequences (space) for a polypeptide of 574 amino acid residues. 10^747 is 20^574. So I will proceed with 5^574. Log 5 = .69897
574 x .69897 = 10^401.

One sequence in 10^401 can only have been assembled by an intelligent agent. But if you consider only 5 of the 20 possible amino acids suitable for human hemoglobin to be too many, so that it furthers your dog in the fight, use a smaller number. I suppose that you will select just the right small number to justify Darwin's archaic tautology. You strongly resent this discussion, and yet you persist in it. Here's a thought: change the subject. Present something you think is profound and interesting. I did, you can to. Try it!

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research

Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species) said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

There are scores if not hundreds more dissenting opinions to ancient Darwinism. "We don't know" is an answer biologists simply don't want to say. They MUST have a theory, no matter how misguided and useless it may be.

 

Your words not mine:

"Your dishonesty is extremely biased and unintelligent. Nobody is "refuting" science, which of course you misspelled. First you claimed not to have a dog in this fight, and then you expressed the usual Talking Point atheists repeat so condescendingly, so erroneously.

I for one am sick and tired of liberals, atheists, and *intellectuals* spouting the pretentious Big Lie that conservatives and Christians reject science, or know nothing about science."

If you don't want anyone to misrepresent the meaning of your posts then don't tell them they are "dishonest", a "liberal" and "atheist" to be sick of "pretentious" etc.

Ad hominem usually doesn't work well for a civilized debate.

As for you derailing the thread into evolution/creationism: I glanced at your postings in the Religion subforum. Apparently, you managed, in quick order, to alienate a lot of posters on there as well. Maybe that's why you have so many already on your ignore list, while having only 233 posts. Guess how many I have on my ignore list: Zero.

Looking at your participation in these other threads, I think I actually characterized you very well in my previous posts: Someone who wants to pick a fight to prove evolution incorrect, and who will attack and then ignore people when they refuse to play your game. I am not an evolutionary biologist and I am not going to invest time discussing with someone who clearly has no interest listening to a thermodynamic viewpoint.

Have a great day.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL! I am guessing he'll get bored at post # 500.

 

You haven't leveled that complaint at any of your Leftist friends, most of whose names appear on my Ignore List, below.
Their ad hominems never seem to bother you. Why is that?

Any religion forum attracts atheists en masse. They delight in ad hominem attacks, which you find offensive only in selective cases. The pretense of real and imagined *intellectuals*. People as pretentious, as condescending, as offensive as atheists when discussing Christianity in particular will express profound indignation and be, as you say, "alienated". So what? Their offensive comments are of course "free speech." My free speech is ... alienating.

More word games, in which you, and they, have long specialized, while adding very little of consequence.

Nerd, you don't comprehend very well. Threads take twists and turns everywhere, all the time. You are making a very big deal over Merwen's question and my response to it, blaming me for your being offended at Darwinian nonsense discussion in a thread of fun science with unbelievable answers.
I suggested that you say something fun with unbelievable answers, and what do you say? You continue to whine.

Poor form, sir. Very poor form.

You didn't think that through very well at all. I deleted the names of those who have posted the most boring, most worthless messages already.
It's an asymptotic curve. It doesn't extrapolate like nonsense Darwinism.

Get back on the subject you complain so much about diverging from, will you? Can you? Give it a try. Or have you nothing fun and unbelievable to add...

 

How disappointing. I made a simple request, that you get back on the subject of the thread, and contribute something yourself. In response, you added... nothing.

It isn't easy to come up with something that virtually everyone will appreciate, as evidenced by ... well. Here is an interesting question, I think.

When Ferdinand Magellan's crew returned to Spain without him after about a year of circumnavigating the globe, the ship's carefully maintained log was off by one day, and they were absolutely confounded. Elaborate.