you are confusing environmental conditions and minimum requirements for a cell to be alive.
For environmental conditions, I said, we are assuming ‘‘perfect’’ conditions (by the way, I had also astrobiology course in my studies, I am not saying something what I do not understand).
and for minimum requirements for a cell to be alive, you can test in the lab, but a single protein is not a life, you can calculate the probability of protein by constraint its chain 100, 150, 500, you will get probability each of chain
That still doesn’t tell you anything at all about how many other possible proteins or chains can support life. You’re still missing that critical piece of information which make all these “it’s too improbable” claims useless.
I’m asking you to explain how you know what both of those are?.
A) What are the most conducive environmental conditions for the origin of life?
B) What are the minimum requirements for life? Not “a cell to be alive”, but life, any and all possible forms of life.
Is a cell the simplest form of life, and how do you know how such an entity could or could not form?
For environmental conditions, I said, we are assuming ‘‘perfect’’ conditions
Yes I understood that just fine. I’m asking how you know what those “perfect conditions” are?
and for minimum requirements for a cell to be alive, you can test in the lab
What qualifies as a cell, and is that the first stage in the origin of cellular life? How do you know?
but a single protein is not a life
I’m not saying it is. I don’t know what the simplest form of life is. Do you? Then what is it and how do you know that?
i said elsewhere Science cannot observe outside observable nature what might or might not be other possibilities. I am talking about only EXISTING proteins that suppot life, not unobservable-unknown possibilities. When you bring into ‘‘possible outcome’’ unobservable-unknown possibilities that is not science. We are calculating probabilities only with respect to EXISTING life form, not unobservable-unknown life forms. Doing that i am within boudaries of Science, When i start to introduce into my probability equation unobservable-unknown life forms then i am deviating from science into mytology, fairy-tale stories, fiction stories.
The word observed life is the key, I said we calculate probabilities only with respect to EXISTING life form, which means only with respect to observed life.
my last repeat Lottery example fails because it brings into ‘‘possible outcome’’ unobservable-unknown possibilities that is not science. We are only considering obsreved nature, not unobserved nature, Scinece is about discovering nature, existing life, not unobservable-unknown-nonexisting life forms
In that case, the probability of the life that we observe is 1.
We can readily see it is one, because we have excluded all of the possibilities that we don’t see. And you seem to be insisting that we must exclude them.
Do you finally grasp your “the life we see is too improbable so it must be Created” logic is fatally flawed? You’re basing your claim on events you don’t know about
Suppose all you ever saw was adult human beings over the age of 25. You know nothing about sex, pregnancy, meiosis, embryonic development, or childbirth.
Then one day somebody asks you to consider the probability that a human being will come into existence. You look at a human being and you see this colossal, complex assembly of cells, made of proteins and all these different macromolecules.
What are the odds of the spontaneous emergence of an adult human being, assuming “perfect” conditions? Well you don’t know what the “perfect” conditions are, because you don’t know that adult human beings grow from adolescents, that grow from children, which grow from toddlers, which grow from babies, which are born and grow from fetuses, and so on and so forth.
So what I’m saying is we could be in a similar position here. Where we are ignorant about how life itself originates, and so calculating the odds of the spontaneous origin of “adults” is pointless.
Then you haven’t been following the Axe / Gauger ID argument “this protein is too improbable to form so it must be designed” at all. All of Behe’s books are based around the claim evolution is too improbable so the Designer helped out.
The problem is I have heard what Axe’s or Behe’s or Meyer’s arguments are. But is not this protein is too improbable so the Designed did it. They do not say that