What you would also need to show is that all of its ancestors also required that protein.
What do you have against Creationists? I hope you deal with your bigotry. That isn’t kind. I affirm creation, for the record, and I don’t appreciate your condescension.
Creationists make ID arguments all the time, just like yours. By using the conjoined term, we are respecting the fact that ID sees itself as distinct from Creationists, even though both groups often make the same arguments, as you are now.
2 Likes
I do not have against Creationist anything, but I see a tendency to mix it up with Intelligent design, as to be easy to refute ID. Since arguments of Creationists are not solid scientific, by mixing you make an ID in the same way not scientific
Creationists use a lot of ID arguments. So…
1 Like
By the way, i am Christian, but not mixing the bible with ID
For goodness sakes then, stop being so anti Creationists. Until you get Creationists to stop making ID arguments, it makes sense to refer to ID/Creationists arguments. The label isn’t what makes them absurd. We could call them “science” arguments if you like, and they would still be absurd. We are just trying to help you understand why, if that is what you care to understand.
2 Likes
Why are you citing Axe and not any of the thousands of papers on catalytic antibodies, dating from 1986?
More importantly, why did Axe not cite any of them in 2004?
2 Likes
Creationist as used here doesn’t mean literal Genesis young Earth Creationist. It means someone who believes their Deity designed and manufactured (i.e created) all life on the planet.
We refer to such people as ID-Creationists because they believe life forms were created. The “ID” part was an invention by religiously motivated believers to circumvent U.S. laws against teaching religion in public schools.
1 Like
No, you can’t. You don’t have sufficient information to accurately calculate such probabilities.
2 Likes
if you do not like Axe, ok, I will cite Robert Sauer,
Reidhaar-Olson, John, and Robert Sauer. “Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical Regions of Lambda Repressor.” Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7 (1990): 306-16;
what is information is missing? how much accurate is accurate?
I would like you to answer my questions. Science doesn’t work in the way that you are using it. You’re supposed to integrate all of the relevant data before you read a conclusion, and you obviously haven’t done that.
1 Like
I am not writing scientific paper here, if you know something bring it up, i have not written a paper, and gave for a review here
I already did. Catalytic antibodies. There are a couple of threads on this board about them.
1 Like
But you don’t know that there are no other proteins that could perform a similar function. If the claim is that some organism requires a specific function to be performed to be alive, then you need to determine how many different proteins are capable of performing that function.
Just because the organism uses some particular protein to perform that function does not tell you that that protein is the only possible one that can perform that function. I don’t know how you could even hope to begin to assess that without some extremely large and practically infeasible experiments. So since you can’t actually claim to possess the very knowledge that you would need to make the calculation you are attempting, your argument here is hopeless.
3 Likes
@Edgar_Tamarian, I was absent for a while when you first described yourself on an introduction thread. So this is my belated welcome to you for joining Peaceful Science.
In order better to understand where you are coming from, I just now re-read that introduction thread in which you wrote this:
Am I understanding you correctly? It sounds like you said that you are self-taught and “understand all the concepts in biology”—and that you understand “whose arguments are strong.” I took multiple courses in biology (long ago) and have been reading a lot of biology papers, books, and tutorials in the roughly half-century since my formal coursework. Yet, I feel like I understand only a very small fraction of “all of the concepts in biology.” Yes, I can often determine the stronger argument when I observe discussions and debates between people of widely different academic credentials and professional biological research experiences (e.g., between an evolutionary biology professor and a family practice physician.) On the other hand, when the parties are much better matched, I often can’t personally evaluate the merits of their arguments. Some of those technical topics go too far beyond my limited knowledge. Thus, based upon my own personal experiences, I found your aforementioned post surprising.
Even in my own fields of linguistics and Biblical theology, I certainly don’t understand “all of the concepts.” This is especially true for developments in those fields since my retirement. So I just wanted to ask: Did I perhaps misunderstand you?
4 Likes
Thanks for the welcome.
Yes, misunderstood me, but it was not your fault. It was my fault that what I wanted to say in English sounds BOLD CLAIM, Even experts of any field do not understand all, and science is about a thing that humanity as whole understands a tiny fraction of Nature, perhaps it was my English sounds bad, I am not native speaker
2 Likes
Whom you are blaiming for calculating probabilites Hubert P.Yockey? was he ID proponent or was he creationist?
Hubert P.Yockey «A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory» [Journal of Theoretical Biology] [Vol 67, Issue 3] (1977), pp. 377-398
But wasn’t their probability of winning p=0.0?
I think that proceeds from the argument that is being put forth here that the probability of an event that has occurred is p=1.0. It follows that the probability of an event that did not occur is 0.0. You have to add up the individual probability and they have to equal 1.
You might even say that it is inevitable that these proteins would not exist. 
Usually probabilities are expressed as a number between 0 and 1. If the odds of it occurring were 1 in 1 then it was the only possible outcome. Is that what you intended to say?
Perhaps it does help to work this backwards. If the probability of an event is 1.0 then that event is the only possible outcome in the probability space. But you are saying there are other possible outcomes in the probability space. If there are other possibile outcomes that would be a different probability space.
@nwrickert can you help us out here?
2 Likes