A probability of life creation without intervention of any power can be shown as 1*10^(-n), where the lowest counted n (AFAIK) is 700. Even if we ‘cut’ some levels of n (lets say.. 80 – let each atom in the universe has his own planet Earth), we have n=620 and Prob = 1*10^(-620) – impossible.

In UK there were buses with ‘There probably is no God’, right? It should be changed to ‘There probably is no Aliens’.

But it is only a probability….

PhilipBaxter: “all over the world, all over the galaxy no doubt, then the universe”, especially “all over the galaxy no doubt” – what makes you think this way? In the fact, there is no evidence of ANY live outside Earth and the probability is telling us that the life on Earth is a big surprise. Maybe you have newer facts about it? Please, type them here.

You raise an interesting point. Many people seem to assume that life will be found, and is indeed on other planets. Yet this is based simply on the religion of naturalism. Basically, this religious belief is: life isn’t that hard to get by chance (or, if it is hard to get by chance, it’s likely it will happen due to there being so many planets in the universe), and is a byproduct of nature, so of course there will be life on other planets. Yet we have never found life on other planets, and we have no reason, as of yet, to suggest we will find it.

I fail to see how how eliminating any of the elementary components enumerated would do anything other than completely disable the trap – hardly leaving it still functional but less efficient. The article writer seems to be presumptuously assuming that “irreducibly complex” machines are ultimately really not, contrary to basic logic and common sense.

RMI2 appears to be more like a refinement to the basic BLM mechanism that enables it to work more effectively, analogous to refining the mousetrap design with a better designed hold down bar and catch that is very resistant to accidental triggering. The basic BLM mechanism is probably irreducibly complex in the mousetrap sense.

http://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com/

–Mario

Mario edited the post without any indication of having done so. The Behe quote at the end was originally attributed (intentionally or otherwise) to the author of the Nature article.

This is made relevant by Behe’s observation that “Darwinian scenarios, either for building mousetraps or biochemical systems, are very easy to believe if we aren’t willing or able to scrutinize the smallest details, or to ask for experimental evidence. They invite us to admire the intelligence of natural selection. But the intelligence we are admiring is our own.”

It seems to me that

a) They have provided experimental evidence, otherwise what is being described in the article?
b) They have scrutinized the smallest detail, otherwise what is being described in the article?
c) Omit certain components of the trap (The BLM protein complex), and the device may still operate, albeit less efficiently. Does this not invalidate Behe’s mousetrap example somewhat?
d) Where, specifically, have they invited us to “admire the intelligence of natural selection”?

After all, no doubt there are systems as complex, more complex, less complex everywhere. We’ll no doubt be documenting such systems in the same way species have been discovered, for years to come.

Are you saying that each such complex discovered is the product of a seperate instance of intelligent intervention?

That the, trillions upon trillions of such systems (all over the world, all over the galaxy no doubt, then the universe) are all designed?

Seems to me the sensible thing to so, if such systems were desired would be to set them up so that they generated themselves, perhaps by enabling them to repoduce and combine in slightly different ways, you’d eventually get a diverse range of systems each “designed” for the task at hand.

Seems much less work to me!

An addendum would suffice, I believe, to make a connection between the author of the article – Brosh – and how you hoped to entwine Behe’s summation from the article.

Just a thought for purposes of clarity …