cypress

I disagree with your characterization. Are you suggesting that it is valid to make an appeal to ignorance and a less parsimonious explanation to prop up the idea of a past infinite mass in this universe? I am guessing you would not.

It is primarily the static head of the water column though in some cases the liquid in the pore space supports the geologic formations and thus they contribute as geopresured zones.

The universe has been expanding since it was created by the Big Bang billions of years ago, and it's going to keep expanding. In this way, the universe can be thought to be infinite.

A universe of fixed mass forever expanding outward does not improve probability the way Skeptic proposed because it does not and cannot add unobserved probabilistic resources for events that occurred in the past.

Even though this is the correct way to estimate the probability, there are variables left out that must be there to give an absolute accurate estimate. With an infinite universe, the OP is saying that there would be infinite life forms, which makes sense. The 50% he mentions, is the probability that our universe is infinite. Because duh, it's either infinite or finite.

As I indicated above it is not the correct way to estimate probability unless one knows that the mass of this universe (and therefore the amount of probabilistic resources) was infinite at the time that life occurred. Since we can only make assumptions about the mass of the universe beyond the observable horizon, if there is any universe beyond that and this is a huge if, we cannot know. As far as the probability of finite or infinite goes, it is not a 50-50 proposition. Since we don't have any experience with infinite material things, Occam's razor hacks away at the idea of infinity and leaves only finite.

We shouldn't be looking at just the probability of a life form formed, but also the probability that that life form is found by us in any given way. If it hasn't been found by us, we cannot say that it ever existed in the first place.

This is a topic for another thread. Start one if you wish.

If the formation of life was a completely random thing then the probability of life occurring would be infinitesimally small, almost but not quite impossible. Fortunately we now know it isn't a random chance, not only does order tend to arise from chaos but in the presence of excess energy chemistry tends to form more and more complex chemical structures.

We don't "fortunately know that order tends to rise from chaos". On the contrary the laws of thermodynamics ensure that forming order requires still higher order, and chemistry plus energy forms chemical structures of equal or lesser order. Deterministic repeating structure is not a lower entropy (and therefore higher order) system. Simple repeating patterns are not complex.

Although this is an interesting area of inquiry, bringing in non-random processes is off topic. consider starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

in this walkthrough:

 

http://www.explainth...istorswork.html

 

 

it says:

 

"the n-type has a surplus of electrons, the p-type has holes where electrons should be. Normally, the holes in the base act like a barrier, preventing any significant current flow flowing from the emitter to the collector"

The holes are lack of electrons in the silicon due to the doped material capturing some of them from the silicon. The current will ultimately flow through the silicon since there is not a contiguous path from one doped atom to the next. So with p-type we have silicon that is ready to receive electrons and the silicon has a positive charge even though the material as a whole is neutral.

I don't understand why/how electrons flow/stop-flowing in this scenario.

 

A - The language 'the holes.. act like a barrier'. if 'holes' are (lack of electrons/positive charge), doesn't that mean they are LOOKING FOR electrons (i.e. attracting them). How can they both 'attract' electrons but then also 'act like a barrier' / repel (those same electrons)?

Yes they are looking for electrons and once they get them there will be no additional propensity for current flow unless there is a positive external potential pulling the now excess electrons out of the silicon to open up new holes for more electrons. So a current will flow if you hook the p-type material to an external positive potential and no flow if you hook it to an external negative potential (since the negative potential will flood the silicon with electrons and fill the holes). Remember it is only because there are holes that large currents will flow. Once the holes are filled there will be no more current flow. Think about what you would need to do to keep current flowing ----> make holes. To make holes ----> pull out more electrons.

B - what stops electrons from just going straight from the ntype plates to the Base as soon as the 'sandwhich' is glued together? Sort of seems like a transistor is a naturally closed circuit. i.e. The base wants electrons, and the ntype plates have them so why don't the electrons just head over? if the answer is 'they need energy to overcome (silicon's) natural resistance to electron flow', wouldn't applying energy to the Base cause both ntype plates to send their electrons straight to the Base until all three plates are balanced?

The doped material gives up electrons to the silicon so the silicon has an excess of electrons but the n-type plate overall has a neutral charge so just gluing the thing together does nothing. It is only when you hook up external potential that the magic starts. Hopefully you see that they do need energy but it is not because of the silicon's natural resistance to flow.... the doping material eliminates/reduces the resistance by creating electron bridges and holes that allow for unimpeded flow as long as you keep replacing them as they are "used" ..... it is because the external potentials (energies) are needed to replenish the positive holes (electron sink) and negative bridges (electron source). It takes work to keep the fire stoked.

If you applied a positive charge to the base and negative charges to both the collector and the emitter would cause both to send electrons to the base and it would be a double diode, but if you apply a negative charge to the emitter and a positive charge to the collector then you would get a current amplifier.

C - finally, how is there amplification in this? i.e. if I had only one 9V battery for input and the output was to, say, a lightbulb, how would those components connect with a transistor? Would I connect the battery positive to the Emitter and the battery negative to the Base and the output would come out the Collector? And then would that output be > 9V? ('amplified') or increased amps?

Keep in mind that the amplification is a current amplifier not a voltage amplifier. and the amplification is not relative to the battery current, it is collector current relative to the base current. The current (energy) has to come from somewhere, there is no free lunch, and this somewhere is the battery. It is easy to take a transistor and simulate a voltage amplifier, just add resistors to the base and collector and take voltage taps off the resistors.

So it is increased amps. You connect the negative to the emitter and positive to the base and collector. You feed electrons to the emitter to replenish the electron bridges that collapse into the bases holes and pull electrons from the base to replenish the holes that get filled by the collapsed bridges and the rest of the electron bridges "fling" electrons over to the collector because the potentials created cause most of the electrons to jump the bridges and overshoot the holes. So to speak anyway.

So I think electron-flow is the main puzzle piece I am trying to get. For example, regarding say, 100 electrons:

 

Battery: negative terminal sends 100 electrons to Base, Base has, say, 99 holes, so 1 extra electron wants to go somewhere, but it is surrounded by (ntype silicon) that already has too many electrons (repelling it). So how does it go anywhere?

To see if you got it, I'll let you try to fix the error in your example.

or how does that one electron 'amplify' the electron flowing form the emitter to the collector? If the electron from the base just adds on the electron coming from the emitter, then '2' electrons would arrive at the collector, but isn't that just balanced? (no net gain of electrons?)

 

-al

Yes but for most transistors it is not one to one, it is more like one to twenty and it is a function of voltage applied to the base to. A little positive voltage on the base gives you one to two while a lot of voltage gives you one to one hundred. In addition they are influenced by the voltage biasing between the base and the collector so you can get all kinds of complex amplifications until you overdrive it and then the collector current hits a ceiling (and in the case of audio you blow out your speakers due to high frequency overtones).

Hope this helps, this is not easy stuff to understand.

Yes, we really disagree on this. I think it is best to start a separate thread on information. I'd start one for you but I'd like you to have the chance to choose the title and the contents of the first post in it. Just link to it here for others to follow. Feel free to copy/paste to save time.

I have struggled since you suggested this on how to introduce this new thread and where to put it. How about you get it started?

my response to this is here.

New Post

In another post I offered an analysis by Fred Hoyle indicating life by chance alone was astronomically poor. In response Skeptic suggested life by change alone could be improved by bringing in resources from a hypothetical infinite universe. Since this discussion was not the primary purpose of the original post I offer this thread to explore the idea further. Here is Skeptic's explanation.

It is a rough estimate of the probability that the universe is infinite (we don't yet know). Given an infinite universe, now calculate the chance that at least one life form formed by a process with a probability to occur of 1 in 10^41,000 (your numbers): [math]Probability = 1 - (1 - 10^{-41,000})^{\infty} = 1 - 0 = 1[/math]. On average you would expect there to be [math]10^{-41,000} \infty = \infty[/math] life forms forming by said method. So the probability that some life formed by such an unlikely method is the same as the probability that the universe is infinite -- which I estimated at ~50% -- and the number of such life that would exist in that case would be inifinte. Feel free to look up more accurate numbers, but know that they will be much closer to 50% than you will be comfortable with. The numbers may instead refer to the curvature of the universe; in that case the closed universe is finite and the flat and open are infinite.

 

The reason I would not expect to ever find such life forms is that our observable universe is quite finite due to the expansion of space, and in any case if we did find a life form it would most likely have been formed by a much more likely method, such as one of the current theories of abiogenesis.

I see at least three issues with this analysis.

First off it is not clear that an infinite universe is real or even possible. Even it it were possible and was real it is not clear that expansion would actually obscure any part of the universe from our vantage point even though one can create a mathematical model that does, it does not mean that the model is correct or even the only workable one.

Second, I am aware that if one assumes expansion, one can derive probabilities near 50% given the assumption. If one chooses other models compatible with General Relativity then the probability of a substantially larger universe than what is observable approaches 0. The choice of assumption is arbitrary and primarily based on metaphysical bias. Since the probability of an infinite universe is based on an arbitrary presumption, we can't say if the estimate is real or not. This seems more like putting an appeal to ignorance (about the extent of the universe) into a chance wrapper and claiming one has made a good point. It is creative though, I'll give you that.

Finally, it lacks causal adequacy since we have no experience of any material thing having a property that is infinite. On the other hand math has many known concepts with no real counterpart and thus it is possible that infinity is a mathematical construct alone.

One of the realities about polls is that the results are heavily influenced by how the questions are asked. The 1991 Gallup poll has been significantly improved to get a better understanding of what "scientists" or better what those with technical degrees actually think about this topic. A more recent poll from 2004 finds that 68% of those in the US with natural and applied science degrees do not accept the idea that life as we know it today is a product of natural processes alone. This percentage drops away as one migrates closer to biology but it is far different from the 99.9% and the 95% numbers being cited. Another poll of Physicians only put the number at 60% disagreeing with a natural only explanation. One of the biggest reasons for the difference is that "evolution" is a term that has a broad set of definitions. If by evolution one means change over time you get the 99.9% number if by evolution one means that all observed diversity is a product of genetic mutation and natural selection, one gets a number of about 60%.

All this to say that forufes has a point that the posting is misleading and one might consider revising it.

In the early stages the cell grows and stores up energy and building materials plus it begins to build some key structures used in the process then the DNA is duplicated then spits/separates during mitosis and then immediately following that during cytokinesis the nuclei and the balance of the organelles and membranes are duplicated and then the cell divides.

So the genome size tends to be related more to the age of something than to its complexity. As in an older, simpler organism may collect a load of junk over the millenia that serves no purpose and is not actually expressed?

No that does not appear to be the case. There is not a relationship between presumed age and genome size. Also it does not appear to be the case that organism populations accumulate any substantial loads of junk over the millennia (although certainly the genome does pick up some nonfunctional noise since some errors do occur. The Junk DNA prediction which reasons that given the process of random genetic errors and natural selection, and in order to provide the raw material for advantageous modifications, genetic junk should accumulate over time. But this idea appears to be false. Recent research indicates that any junk that does accumulate tends to get switched off and eliminated over time in a constrained resource environment.

I recall that there were a couple from my days doing reaction kinetics for reactor designs. Perry's Handbook has a section on this and I think my old textbook does too. I'll have a look on Monday.

I tried to answer this once and I think I lost my post so will try to answer this again. As I understand your question you are asking if evolution can restart or in other words can organic molecules, i.e. amino acids, be formed by lightning strikes in the ocean say and start a new line of evolution. Well certainly anything that happened once can happen again. However, in the begining, when the first building blocks of life were formed they were free to float around as long as they wanted (to be anthropromorphic) and combine and grow or whatever at their leisure. Now, however, as soon as any proto life spontaineously formed some passing organism would see it as food and gobble it up. So although the probability of new lines of evolution are mathematically possible they are highly unlikely.

Interesting, but your conclusion is based on a presupposition about how life might have first started. Change that presupposition and your conclusion of likelihood can change dramatically. For example why assume just one kind of original life form? Why assume proto-life spontaneously forms?

i don't see why you think this.

 

if you're at the top of a tall building and cannot see down the sides, you can logically deduce that the building must have a bottom(as it is still standing).

 

the evidence is the stability of the building and the logical necessity is that it has a bottom.

Yes because we know some things about newtonian physics and buildings and this information allows us to eliminated alternatives. In the case of past relatedness we lack the information that would allow us to reduce the alternatives.

in the case we are presented here the existence of each and every one of us is the evidence(quite solid evidence really) and the logical necessity is that, from the start of the chain all our ancestors successfully reproduced.

 

your parents reproduced successfully, your gandparents did too. and so on and so on until you get all the way back to the primordial soup the first cells appeared in.

 

its not particularly complex or intricate logic here.

No not complex or intricate, but to suggest it is necessity is faulty logic. Just because we reproduce does not make it a necessity that all species are related. It might be so, but it might not be so.

What's short? The fact that most all living things have very similar genetic blueprints makes it far more possible that we all come from a very long line of ancestry. Not to say it isn't possible for there to have been multiple original organisms, but even it that's true it's still a long line of speciation.

Fewer than 10 is definitely short in my opinion. What's long for that matter? Given the relative rarity of functional proteins as compared to the totality of sequences (less than 1 in 10^74) it makes perfect sense that we find an abundance of similarity throughout life. How do you figure mere similarity (often less than 50% sequence similarity) makes it far more possible that we came from a very long line than from a short line?

The logical necessity I was referring to was that 100% of your direct ancestors managed to reproduce. As for the length of the line, it's not inarguable until you look at the empirical evidence.

Ah if that's all and if it is more logical necessity than evidence then the evidence must be weak also.

If this is what you took from my words than I misspoke. The overall message from my posts in total should indicate my position.

No thanks, cypress. I've dealt with you for long enough on other forums, and I know what a waste of time it is to engage with you. I'm not going to chase you down your tangents and off-topic non-sequiturs.

 

If you have nothing other than personal attacks against another poster then site rules suggest you should say nothing. This is now two posts of yours about my post with no substance, just attacks. If you are not prepared to back up your claims then it would be better to keep your personal opinions about others to yourself.

Several in this post have stated that there is no evidence that thi universe or anything in it was created. It is a false statement. Reject the evidence if you like and admit you are rejecting it but claiming there is none simply does not wash.

Well yes. You and I and everyone else are descended from a very, very long line of individuals who successfully produced offspring. Obviously. Similarly, the human species (and every other living species) is descended from a very long line of species who managed not to go extinct.

 

That's more just logical necessity than employing any principle of evolution.

Is it logical necessity or presupposition? Is it not logically possible that some living species are descended from short lines of species? Is there some logical reason that cannot be some other way? It's not so much that I doubt there exist very long lines of offspring, it's just that we should try to be accurate lest we oversell our favored ideas.

 

I tend to agree whole heartedly with this sentiment. Sure, I may be wrong, but it's highly unlikely that I am.

This statement sounds like a metaphysical presupposition. I don't see how one can estimate likelihood. How were you able to determine the likelihood of your truth statement?

 

 

While people like cypress will tell you that you're simply looking in the wrong place, it's somewhat telling that they cannot even tell you where that place is. It's one big circular argument they make full of little more than bald assertions and obfuscation.

Am I? In a parallel thread I have provided two pieces of evidence for a creator of this universe and then life in it. We are unable to offer a natural alternative to mind for either of these pieces of evidence. So we can perceive the presence of the "fish" when one looks in the right place and that is not a circular argument and it is not assertion. If you disagree, by all means enter the discussion and show how natural causes operating today do generate fine tuned systems and digitally encoded functional information. I think your blinders are showing.

"New form and function is the focus because it is easiest to identify but one could easily include all modifications in that statement."

 

If one includes all modifications, one is not constrained by any information theory rules. And Lenski showed that modifications happened at a much greater rate than 1 per 20,000 generations.

Why would one include modifications that are functionally neutral and therefore don't alter information content? Lenski shows us what we already know when he demonstrates large numbers of sequence modifications. Given the mutation rate and genome size one can expect a mutation every 1200 divisions. With the quantity of colonies Lenski's researchers monitored they were getting every single nucleotide replaced every 15 to 30 days. Compare this to the rate in mammals over geologic time where it took/takes 1000's to 100,000's of years to replace every nucleotide. Obviously Lenski was getting modifications and we did not need his experiment to demonstrate this. However very few advantageous modifications were accumulating. In fact there was just one in over 30,000 generations.

I think it is time to return to the primary point because these side issues get us nowhere and only obscure the issue. Known evolutionary processes do not accomplish what is predicted, they do not accumulate functional change at the pace required. They don't because we observe that they do not generate functional information at a pace significantly faster than blind search and this makes sense because information entropy laws constrain the increase in information to that of a blind search unless information is imported. Natural processes must conform to the rules of thermodynamics and probability. The staggering amount of digitally encoded functional information required for life is evidence that a mind was the cause of life.

Personally, I don't think odds of about 50% are all that low.

I would ask you to explain that number but it is so ridiculous and unsupportable I won't bother. I doubt even you accept that number since after you answered that you thought there was a reasonable probability that life from non-life occurred by random chemic processes alone you then said it likely included non-chance components.

Which makes us wonder, why then did you bring up this red herring in the first place?

Just because a hypothetical process includes multiple steps does not change the fundamentals. The analysis is unchanged by me correcting an error in the your and Sisyphus' argument. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the details of these analyses. Relevance is unchanged.

I chose atheism for a very simple reason: the evidence weighs heavily in favor of it.

 

I believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If we look for something, and we find no evidence of it anywhere, that is evidence that it is not there. If I told someone to go look in my freezer for a fish, and try as they might, while going through my freezer they neither saw, smelt, or felt any fish, that would be evidence, and compelling evidence at that, in favor of the fish not being there.

Here is the fallacy of your logic. when you send someone to your freezer for fish, the freezer is a very rational place to be looking for it especially since you implied there would be fish there and the person looking logically reasons it should be there and if it is there they should see it, smell it and touch it. Since they don't, it is rational to conclude it is not there. However if you send them to find fish in your freezer and having looked in the shower they return declaring you have no fish, they have made a logical error.

The more likely reason you have not found evidence for a creator is because you have not or cannot look in the proper places.

Gods can be held to the same standard. The fact that there is not one confirmed instance of something supernatural breaking the natural order of the world at any time in history is compelling evidence of a lack of not just gods, but anything supernatural.

Why should you expect this of a creator? You are looking in the shower for frozen fish.

I say the patterns are not very complex and one that you should easily see repeating in shape space numerously just as observers have found, but if you find meaning in it, don't let me dissuade you.

The problem is that it seems you're equivocating "chance" as in randomly picked from the set of all possibilities with "chance" as in the result of natural processes. Hoyle's Fallacy is a fallacy for that reason.

Not at all. I use chance alone to distinguish the mechanism from other proposals that include various self or guided ordering mechanisms. Hoyle's numbers are based on this assumption of chance and chemic properties of the direct constituents alone. Hoyle chose the method he did to make it a demonstrate the absurdity of claiming life arose by chance alone. You seem to find it fallacious because you reject the premise outright without even evaluating his analysis.

It seems odd that you are arguing this since we both agree chance alone is a non-starter.

I'd have to say yes, and furthermore that this chance is roughly the same as the chance that the universe is infinite (we don't yet know). But even with an infinite universe, it would be silly to expect to actually find an example of life arising by pure chance in a single step, rather than one via a several step process that includes chance and non-chance components.

Wow I am surprised you put any faith at all in such odds. But in any case these analyses are combinatorial probabilities that do not require life in one step. So it is not necessary to stipulate life in one step for these analyses.

So going back to irreducible complexity as an argument? You are aware that even for multienzyme (most prominently tryptophan synthase) complexes astonishingly still examples exist where there are stepwise changes in affinity of the subunits? That it is possible in a number of cases to trace down the development of such a complex into an operon?

The observation that some biological systems cease one or more primary functions if certain key components are removed is a good and valid argument, but it is not what I intended just now. Instead I note that suggesting that many short peptides have weak catalytic activity is irrelevant cherry picking since the vast majority of biological systems require proteins altogether different from this example. One the whole fewer than one in 10^74 protein sequences greater than 150 units are functional and the vast majority of proteins are longer than 150 units. I am also aware that there are examples of short stepwise pathways from a weakly functional enzyme to a specialized enzyme but only if a mind (the researcher) specifically constructs the weak enzyme. I consider this cherry picking as well.

Do you really want to argue that everything we see now is just as it ever was and that the similarities and differences that are phylogentically traceable are just so designed?

Wow. The designer had a heck load of time on his hands.

lol, Please don't mischaracterize my position. I accept that change and diversification has occurred over time, I question how the changes occurred given that current evolutionary processes have not been observed to generate such change in a timeframe that would be required to be consistent with the geologic record. I think we need to throw the current proposals in the dustbin and find the actual processes involved.

So... if an alteration spreads through the entire population, the net functional information does not increase, because the old gene no longer exists.

 

If the alteration exists in one particular subgroup, but another group retains the old gene, the net functional information increases.

 

Somehow, the second option cannot be easily done via mutation and natural selection, because of the information increase.

 

Is that what you are implying?

No, I was simply making an accounting distinction in how to describe substantive differences in the human genome vs. primate example. Don't miss the forest for the trees, it is just one of millions of cases and it was offered to illustrate the challenge which is that nobody has yet demonstrated that known evolutionary processes do actually generate new form and function in the timeframe indicated by the fossil record no matter which example is chosen. New form and function is the focus because it is easiest to identify but one could easily include all modifications in that statement. The diversity in the genome of species that are thought to have a common ancestor represent differences in the digital information content of the DNA and this kind of information is a not only a convenient way of measuring the functional content but it is also a marker of a process derived by mind since thus far only intelligent agents are observed capable of deriving digitally encoded functional information. this is evidence that life was created by a causal power with a mind, and it is this that is the topic of this thread. Let's not lose focus.

If you want to see exactly what blind search is capable of, what you should do is take a genetic algorithm, and modify its fitness function to be constant. Do that (or just imagine it) and compare it to the same genetic algorithm with a particular fitness function. Compare the results, then come back and tell me about how effective blind search is. (And if you meant blind search while still checking for results, instead modify the genetic algorithm to not prefer the more fit over the less fit in the reproduction phase).

Yes I agree this would be an interesting approach to discover what is required to generate functional systems. The challenge in conducting these kinds of tests is to avoid conformational bias and other errors by not inadvertently inserting information into the algorithm and thus helping the algorithms to succeed. In probability theory, it has been shown that on average over the range of fitness landscapes, no search function outperforms blind search. It is called the No Free Lunch Theorem. If you wish to discuss this as a potential solution to the challenge posed by information perhaps a new thread would be good for this topic too.

Your source for the 10,000 alterations figure may use a different definition than you do. I am just trying to determine what definition that source uses.

Perhaps so, I have not had the time or energy to locate the original source. However irrespective of that example, the basic premise remains that we do not observe any natural processes generating large quantities of information significantly faster than a blind search. Furthermore in order for known evolutionary processes to account for observed diversity of life, one would look at the required rate of information increase throughout geologic time and compare it to the rate of increase we do observe. When this comparison is made, it fails. I have seen these analyses made three or four times now. Once using malaria and the human hosts as an example, once with whale evolution, once in an analysis of gene expression controls and once with regard to the increase in phylum during the Cambrian.

On the other hand, your definition includes "function and form modifications," which means that "substantive alterations" encompasses mutations that do not introduce new information but merely alter existing functions. For example, changing size without introducing novel mechanisms would be a "function and form modification," but it would not be constrained by your information-theoretic concerns.

 

If that is the case, the figure of 10,000 is attainable, because the information theory constraint does not apply. We are not limited by the amount of information that must be generated, because 10,000 "significant alterations" do not imply 10,000 cases of new "information" being introduced.

I don't agree with your distinction because the criteria in either case should be whether or not the alteration ultimately spreads or exists in the entire population of a unique species and another species or the orginal species retains the original. In that case functional information is increased regardless of the nature of the alteration (agin keeping in mind that only alterations that change function or form are included, since information is equal if two sequences have the identical function). The main problem we are having is you seem to presuppose a mechanism even in discussing the changes. If we drop the presupposition and remain focused on the fact of the changes, then I don't see how it matters.