There’s a great bar bet which works on the same principle.
Take two normal thoroughly shuffled 52 card decks. Begin turning over the top card of each deck at the same time, continue until the cards are done. Ask people the odds the same card (value and suit) will appear at the same time. Most will guess 1 in 52, or sometimes 1 in 10. If you do the math the probability that some two-card set will match is around 65% or almost 2/3. (!)
Both of those statements are objectively false.
The article below was the answer you gave me, but if it is the best answer evolutionists can provide to account for ATP synthase, then they are in very bad shape indeed, for the scenario offered in this article is an exercise of pure speculation with no connection to reality whatsoever. IOW, purely and simply a just-so-story.
What is the non-speculative and connected to reality explanation from ID theory?
No it isn’t.
If all you can say in response to that article is to mindlessly declare that it is “an exercise of pure speculation with no connection to reality whatsoever”, then your creationism is in bad shape indeed, for that assertion is flatly untrue.
IOW, purely and simply a just-so-story.
You keep using this turn of phrase hypocritically, since in point of fact you are completely fine with just-so-stories. We know that because the alternative you would propose in place of the evolutionary explanation is not in any way better supported by any empirical evidence.
ID theorists start from an observation of the cause and effect relationships in the world. And from this observation, they note that each time it is possible to trace back the cause of objects exhibiting high FI, this cause is invariably an intelligent cause. On the other hand, they also note that purely natural processes do not have the causal power to produce high FI. Based on these two observations, they claim that biological objects exhibiting high FI are best explained by an intelligent cause than by purely natural processes. So you see, no speculations here; only observation and sound use of logic.
That’s not at all logical.
For a simple demonstration, try this:
ID theorists start from an observation of the cause and effect relationships in the world. And from this observation, they note that each time it is possible to trace back the cause of objects exhibiting high FI, this cause is invariably the actions of one or more humans. On the other hand, they also note that purely natural processes do not have the causal power to produce high FI. Based on these two observations, they claim that biological objects exhibiting high FI are best explained by the actions of one or more humans. than by purely natural processes.
Exactly the same ‘logic’. If your version works, this version does too. If this version is flawed, your version is also flawed.
Which is it? Is your ‘logic’ garbage, or did humans design ATP synthase?
As has been conclusively settled before on this discussion forum, you have been completely unable to determine the actual FI of any biological object. You can’t even ballpark it.
, this cause is invariably an intelligent cause.
This claim is even worse than the previous. The only “intelligent cause” we actually know about is ourselves. Homo sapiens. But we also know that Homo sapiens did not design life. In fact that we could not have designed life. So instead you seem to just make up that there’s some other intelligent designer out there.
But this is not an inference, then, it’s a sort of conjecture. You speculate that there is another designer out there. But this speculation does not even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis.You have no models of it that explain why you expect (read: predict) anything in particular from this speculative intelligent designer. You wouldn’t even know what to look for. You declare that you expect high FI from it, but this is a blind declaration. There is no model that predicts this.
On the other hand, they also note that purely natural processes do not have the causal power to produce high FI.
If by note, you mean blindly assert, sure. Problem is we have no reason to accept even that statement. As has been discussed around here before numerous times too, it is entirely conceivable that some biological entity, like a protein sequence, which exhibits very high amounts of FI, evolved from some other biological entity that exhibits low FI, but which performed another function. In fact, that is what evidence shows has some times occurred with some fusion proteins such as Prp8 that consists of multiple distinct, transposon-derived domains.
Based on these two observations, they claim that biological objects exhibiting high FI are best explained by an intelligent cause than by purely natural processes. So you see, no speculations here; only observation and sound use of logic.
For reasons just explained, that is simply opposite to demonstrable fact. You have no relevant observations to your speculative intelligent designer, and your logic is unsound.
No, the logic is sound. For what is the attribute that allows humans to produce objects or systems with high FI? Intelligence of course! Don’t forget that there are only 3 caterogies of causes in the universe, ie, chance, necessity and intelligence.
So if chance and necessity cannot produce high FI but intelligence can, it follows that intelligence better explain high FI than chance and necessity.
If the logic is sound, then you can conclude that humans designed ATP synthase (and were able to do so because humans are intelligent).
All of which is merely an argument that humans could have designed ATP synthase, and has no bearing on your ‘logic’, or the conclusion.
Natural non-intelligent processes which combine chance and necessity (i.e. evolution) can produce high FI. That’s why Dembski’s argument was rejected a decade ago.
I’m not seeing anything about ATP synthase. What were the specific events that led to ATP synthase according to ID theory?
Do you doubt that Gil can write down the sequence of ATP synthase? Do you doubt that a protein engineer can make a modified version that will generate ATP?
The problem is solved with a mind.
Now generate a computer program that can generate the sequence of a protein complex with “fitness” as a target that can generate ATP rapidly enough to keep a bacteria alive that will replace ATP synthase.
It turns out without this protein complex you cannot keep the bacteria alive. A very interesting chicken and egg problem.
Actually, yes, I do.
Lottery fallacy. Again. Yaawwwn.
If he hasn’t been told first, then yeah I’m pretty sure he can’t.
Do you doubt that a protein engineer can make a modified version that will generate ATP?
Without decades of scientific progress to build on, and technological innovations, and training, yes I doubt that too.
The problem is solved with a mind.
And lots and lots of hard work, and centuries of science and innovation.
Now generate a computer program that can generate the sequence of a protein complex with “fitness” as a target that can generate ATP rapidly enough to keep a bacteria alive that will replace ATP synthase.
Why? Whether we can make such a program or not has zero bearing on whether ATP synthase evolved.
It turns out without this protein complex you cannot keep the bacteria alive
It may be the case that bacteria today cannot live without this complex, but that doesn’t entail cellular life could not exist without it. I cannot live without my heart or digestive system, but there are complex multicellular organisms that live without them. They’re called sponges.
Things used to be different.
It is interesting to note that Biology is full of chicken and egg problems. It is also interesting to note that these problems are problems only within a naturalist framework, for they completely disappear under an ID perspective.
It shows your claim that it did evolve is vacuous.
How so?
You claim a mechanism or mechanistic explanation yet you cannot show with a model its feasibility. Even string theory has a model.
You’re exhibiting a textbook example of gap-reasoning. There’s some perceived problem with determining what came first, X or Y, so when and if you can’t figure it out, instead it God did it.
It is equally interesting to note that biologists have discovered many solutions to these questions too.