D-Wave principal Geordie Rose makes 3 predictions.

[HalationEffect]

The simplest proteins are at least 150 amino acids long, and even the smallest enzymes require folded proteins to work properly. To make those enzymes or proteins requires DNA and RNA. In our universe the probabilistic resources are insufficient to allow for the evolution of proteins and enzymes from pre-biotic soup. Even the "RNA World" fails.

Actually, the probabilistic resources of just one universe are quite sufficient, see: here for a full explanation. And the notion that M-theory was deliberately crafted with the intent of 'eliminating the need for a creator' can surely only be taken seriously by wearers of tinfoil hats.

On the subject of William of Ockham's razor... it's always seemed to me that {universe} is a simpler notion than {universe + creator}.

The creationist argument that the universe / life / whatever is way too complex and / or unlikely, therefore an intelligent creator being is necessary (a concept equally, if not more, complex and unlikely!) just strikes me as intellectual dishonesty at best. If it's OK for an intelligent creator being to have arbitrary complexity and to have sprung into existence spontaneously (or to have always existed), why are those same things *not OK* for the universe or for the rise of life from non-life?

[GreyGeek]

Actually, the probabilistic resources of just one universe are quite sufficient, see: here for a full explanation. And the notion that M-theory was deliberately crafted with the intent of 'eliminating the need for a creator' can surely only be taken seriously by wearers of tinfoil hats.

On the subject of William of Ockham's razor... it's always seemed to me that {universe} is a simpler notion than {universe + creator}.

The creationist argument that the universe / life / whatever is way too complex and / or unlikely, therefore an intelligent creator being is necessary (a concept equally, if not more, complex and unlikely!) just strikes me as intellectual dishonesty at best. If it's OK for an intelligent creator being to have arbitrary complexity and to have sprung into existence spontaneously (or to have always existed), why are those same things *not OK* for the universe or for the rise of life from non-life?

Ockham's Razor cuts both ways. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that when evolutionists propose their explanations, models, computer simulations, etc... they become the "creator" by supplying specific and specified information necessary for their models to succeed. You cited the Howler Monkey page response. In it an example is given, with citations as proof:

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10²⁴ molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10²⁷ molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks [14,16].

Q.E.D.?
Not quite. In citation #14's abstract Ferris JP1, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, Orgel LE. assert:

Most theories of the origin of biological organization assume that polymers with lengths in the range of 30-60 monomers are needed to make a genetic system viable. But it has not proved possible to synthesize plausibly prebiotic polymers this long by condensation in aqueous solution, because hydrolysis competes with polymerization. The potential of mineral surfaces to facilitate prebiotic polymerization was pointed out long ago. Here we describe a system that models prebiotic polymerization by the oligomerization of activated monomers--both nucleotides and amino acids. We find that whereas the reactions in solution produce only short oligomers (the longest typically being a 10-mer), the presence of mineral surfaces (montmorillonite for nucleotides, illite and hydroxylapatite for amino acids) induces the formation of oligomers up to 55 monomers long. These are formed by successive 'feedings' with the monomers; polymerization takes place on the mineral surfaces in a manner akin to solid-phase synthesis of biopolymers.

So, after failing to generate a polymer of 50-60 monomers in aqueous solution, they search for a suitable catalysis and claim to find one in the form of montmorillonite (for nucleotides) and hydroxylapatite for amino acids). However, they don't just dump a truck load of those minerals into the small lake that the Howler Monkey suggests is an easy work-around to the improbability of such events happening in nature. If it were that simple new life forms would be popping out of effluents of chemical plants. They use "activated monomers", which is described here.

The carboxyl group of the amino acid must first be activated to provide a better leaving group than OH

In real life that is done with Adenosine Triphosphate, the fuel molecule of the cell, which requires the Krebs Cycle to generate. In a small lake of the HM scenerio the hydroxyapatite is supposed to supply the PO4 to replace the OH so that what couldn't be shown to happen before can now, suddenly be very likely, and small weight polypeptides begin appearing in sufficient number to continue the evolution to a living cell. However, experiments indicated that hydroxyapatite has a thermodynamic solubility product between 10(-57) and 10(-60), but the exact value is difficult to determine because of the formation of surface coats. Everyone is familiar with hydroxyapatite ... they have a mouth full of it. It makes up the enamel of teeth. If it were very soluble in water our teeth would dissolve out of our mouth will drinking a glass of water. But, it is more soluble in acidic solutions, like Mountain Dew, which is a good reason not to drink too much carbonated beverages. Would the lake be acidic enough to dissolve enough PO4 from hydroxyapatite to activate an amino acid? Your guess is a good as mine, but the chances are not good. Besides, out of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids that make of the 21 amino acids found in the human body nine of them are NON-POLAR hydrophobic. I won't bother to go into montmorillonite: any of a group of clay minerals and their chemical varieties that swell in water and possess high cation-exchange capacities, but still won't help the non-polar, hydrophobic problem.

There are many highly qualified people with PhDs in Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Geology, etc. from Cambrige, Yale, Harvard, MIT, etc ... who have come to the opinion that life on this planet did not arise by chance. When one cites the HM forum, which paints all these people with the brush they use, deservedly, on the creation hucksters with phoney degrees from non-existent mills, it is using the "not a true Scotsman" logic ... deliberately. I won't point you to the web sites that behave like HM in disrespecting honest Evolutionists.

If you are interesting in a logical presentation of why life didn't arise by chance, it is a good read by a PhD from Cambrige: "Signature In The Cell".

However, I doubt that I could change your mind and I won't even try, nor will you change mine, unless you can point to an experiment that begins with the basic elements and water, and ends up with a living, reproducing cell, without the input of any guiding information. So, let's just agree to disagree and return to the regular scheduled programming.

[HalationEffect]

Nobody's denying that there are gaps in our knowledge of how abiogenesis happened, because there surely are. Those gaps are steadily shrinking over time though; consider how much more we know now than we knew as little as a century or two ago, then consider how much more we'll learn in the next century or two. And then run that across the board for all fields of study. We haven't yet explained abiogenesis, no argument there, but it seems preposterous to conclude that therefore we never will.

For me, a body of coherent scientific research, even one far from being complete and exhaustive, has far greater explanatory power than the non-answer of 'God did it', which has no explanatory power whatsoever. Then there's the fact that creationists have repeatedly used a range of deceptive methods to advance their agenda (such as the practice of 'quote mining'), which makes it hard to trust whether any argument they put forth is even being made in good faith.

Creationists love to poke at the holes in scientific knowledge, while conveniently ignoring the fact that creationism offers nothing to close those holes. Scientists may have motes in their eyes, but creationists need to lose the beams from theirs before they try picking out anyone's motes.

[woodsmoke]

Ya know GG....I have actually used some of the early work which lead to your discussion in my topics on evolution. The production of dendritic chains and the whole idea of the "Bucky Ball"....However, I have not kept up on "the follow" on that you mentioned. VERY interesting stuff....


*************************

How many people know just WHO it was that originally propounded the Big Bang Theory...

And no I'm not talking about Sheldon Cooper! lol

However, I always keep in mind the following when I am teaching evolution

A-----

There is no creationist who can say with evidence that God has not worked through evolution.

There is no evolutionist who can say with evidence that evolution is not the working through of things by a western god.

B----------

Until the white man happened along..... the "brown men" knew absolutely NOTHING about the white man's science...err...sorry....god, and they got along...just fine.

C ---------------

I keep in mind is that the "evolutionists" that are relatively high up in the education food chain... say....that

"They "accept" the theory of evolution".... when they have done absolutely NO research thereupon....

they have listened to old men in lecture halls in robes dispensing information from the book of all knowledge...the CRC handbook...

they have watched videos, and read "on the net" and done "simulations".....but they have not done RESEARCH...

they therefore....substitute...the word "accept"....for "believe"

because they have to be DIFFERENT than those "stupid people over there"...

D-----------------------

The "creationists" believe...what an old man in robes in a hall speaking from a book say...

and they are DIFFERENT from those "stupid people over there...

E---------------------------

Neither side....has "evidence" that the other side is incorrect...

in both cases it is based on the gestalt that the information giver is, indeed, correct....

Sooooo I do not SHOUT at students that if they do not "believe" this way or that way that they are just STOOPID....

And it seems to have worked for well into thirty years of teaching....

I have students that "believe" in god that say..."ya know... you had somethoughtful things to say and I can now at least consider the idea of evolution"...

and the students who "believe" in evolution say....."ya know...you had some thoughtful things to say and I can now see how maybe people who don't believe in evolution at least have a way of thought".

Because we can lead a horse to water but we cannot make it drink,

no matter how many degrees we have or how many pieces of equipment we have in the lab....

or how big SIZE of the bible and the richness of the leather cover...


just my thoughts...of little worth...

woodsmoke

[jlittle]

The creationist argument...

Oh, I'm not a creationist; creationism seems to me to put shackles on what the creator can do, and is disrespectful of creation, a serious problem of our times.
My point was that anti-creationism appears to have influenced thinking; there's very little or no evidence for an infinity of parallel universes, and a lot for one finite universe.

Regards, John Little

[woodsmoke]

Ya know.....folr such a "little guy"..you have some really BIG thoughts! lol

woodmiddleoftheroadsmoke