A musing
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
the heights).
The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*? And what in between?
The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
self-replicating molecule, and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
filtered by differential reproductive success?
As per my other recent posts, perhaps the ID approach will shed new light on
this question. If not, by the admission of its exponents, it should “wither
and die.” And anyway, without the likes of ID, t.o would all but pack up and
go home.
A universe full of plastic spoons in shades of the colour blue:
If we were to re-run the universe an infinite number of times, using similar
initial conditions and the same physical laws, but randomly re-seeding it
each time, would we ever see a universe composed entirely of plastics spoons
in shades of the colour blue? The answer is no; the probability of this is
not just very small, it is zero, at least according to my understanding of
the laws of physics and the hypothesised formation and distribution of
matter and energy in space-time. My point: many forms and assemblies of
matter are impossible, of probability zero, through purely natural processes
in our universe.
Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc) in
this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is (i.e.
we can’t prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by producing
such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to attempts
at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation of
life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
“Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?”
http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
No hidden agenda here, just musing...
Mark
* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising
> ,etc) in this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove
> that it is (i.e. we can’t prove a negative), though we could prove the
> inverse, by producing such a thing in the lab under simulated natural
> conditions.
>
> Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim
> that abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the
> time available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such
> claims as argument from incredulity?
Yes.
> Or is an event of probability
> less than 1 in 10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000,
> 10^5000000?
Depends on what you mean by "effectively", and whether you're looking at
_a priori_ or _a posteriori_ odds.
If I take a deck of cards -- or two, or a dozen -- shuffle, and examine
the resulting ordering, should I be stunned by disbelief? After all,
regardless of what the ordering was, it was an event of extremely small
probability.
But no matter how many decks of cards I shuffle into the mix, the
probability of any given ordering remains non-zero, and I cannot rule
out the possibility that any given ordering will arise. (It should be
clear that the "this is too improbable to happen" argument can be
applied to every possible outcome, so that if you could rule *any* of
them out on that basis you could rule *all* of them out on that basis.)
Your problem is that you don't recognize that you are employing a
logical fallacy when you look at the result and then calculate the
probability of that result having occured.
As with cards, so with the universe. Perhaps abiogenesis is a
low-probability event (though we won't really know until we've explored
lots of other planets, will we?). Presumably lots of other
low-probability events were possible as well, and most of them in fact
didn't happen. As I mentioned in another thread a few moments ago, if
you assume that what "happened to happen" was the desired target of some
low-probability chain of events then it looks surprising. But if you
recognize that what "happened to happen" is just one of many, many
possible happenings, you'll realize that it's "special" only in the
sense that it did actually happen.
You will never understand science until you give up Plato.
> A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to
> attempts at proof
Proof? Do we really need to explain to you about science and proof
again?
> or demonstration of the impossibility of
For those who don't assume "impossibility" at the outset, the missing
demonstration is much less of a conundrum.
> naturalistic formation of life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers
> explicitly ask the question, “Are Probabilities Indispensable to the
> Design Inference?”
> http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
>
> No hidden agenda here, just musing...
And took a wrong turn somewhere along the way...
The one single thing you need to do to shine a light into this tangle is
to give up your assumptions and work forward from the evidence. It's not
mere chance that the ID crowd have a bagful of grandiose claims that
somehow can't get traction when they try to apply them to reality: it's
because they work from their "conclusions" back toward the evidence
rather than working from the evidence forward to whatever conclusion it
compells upon them.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Jon Fleming
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
<snip>
>Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
>argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
>10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
An event for which the probability is exactly and identically zero is
impossible. An event for which the probability in nonzero is
possible.
<snip>
cats...@yahoo.com
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>I’m buggered. It’s all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
>thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
>my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
>the heights).
>
>The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
Right there you demonstrate a need to do some more thinking (IMHO).
Whatever would possess you to imply that H. sapiens was the "omega" of
anything? (See my response to your footnote below) Certainly it
couldn't come from the ToE or anything else in science. It must then
come from philosophy or (more likely) theology. Passing over the
incometence of any intelligent "designer" who couldn't do any better
than us (either physically, intellectually *or* spiritually), the
belief that humans are the "omega" of the universe certainly seems to
color all your arguments. There is nothing wrong with theology per
se, but mixing it up, indiscriminately, with science is likely to
result in bad science and worse theology.
>And what in between?
>The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
>self-replicating molecule, and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
>filtered by differential reproductive success?
>
>As per my other recent posts, perhaps the ID approach will shed new light on
>this question. If not, by the admission of its exponents, it should “wither
>and die.” And anyway, without the likes of ID, t.o would all but pack up and
>go home.
>
>A universe full of plastic spoons in shades of the colour blue:
>
>If we were to re-run the universe an infinite number of times, using similar
>initial conditions and the same physical laws, but randomly re-seeding it
>each time, would we ever see a universe composed entirely of plastics spoons
>in shades of the colour blue? The answer is no; the probability of this is
>not just very small, it is zero, at least according to my understanding of
>the laws of physics and the hypothesised formation and distribution of
>matter and energy in space-time. My point: many forms and assemblies of
>matter are impossible, of probability zero, through purely natural processes
>in our universe.
Is *everything* equally probable? No. Neither is that particularly
profound.
>
>Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc) in
>this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is (i.e.
>we can’t prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by producing
>such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
Are you granting that, if a self-replicator is produced in a lab, that
is sufficient to "prove" "ontological naturalism" (your phrase, not
mine)?
>
>Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
>argument from incredulity?
Until you do better than just "claim" that it is impossible, what else
should we call it?
>Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
>10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
Bobby has already responded to your probability argument. I would
just note that these arguments are usually built on "double
incredulity". Once when you say "the odds are too great against it"
and also (and in hidden assumptions) when you calculate the odds in
the first place. It runs something like this: the simplest form of
life we know is (say) bacteria. The only way life could form
spontaneously is if a bacteria assembled all-at-once. The odds of the
chemicals coming together in just the right way is a gazzilion to one.
Sorta like a 747 from a windswept junkyard.
It sounds reasonable (to some) because you are building incredulity
into it by making the conditions so unlikely as to demand disbelief.
If "abiogenesis" is *really* your sticking point, then I suggest you
read up on what scientists think the 1st self-replicator might
actually have been like and how it might have originated. Then
provide **evidence** what the probability of *that* occuring is and
then maybe we have something to discuss.
>
>A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to attempts
>at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation of
>life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
>“Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?”
>http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
>
>No hidden agenda here, just musing...
As noted above, I think there is hidden agendas, though I would not
claim that you are aware of them yourself.
>
>Mark
>
>
>* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
>human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
"Widely held"? You don't really want to go there do you? The list of
"widely held" misconceptions, lies, evil beliefs, etc. is too long to
even contemplate.
Besides, *you* start out **assuming** that this is wrong, unless you
are arguing for a "designer" less complex than we are (in which case,
what's wrong with natural selection?).
Also, the "known universe" is such a tiny sample, drawing any
*conclusions* on the basis of "if we don't know about it it didn't
happen" is foolhardy and something that science specifically doesn't
do. Science makes methodological assumptions about naturalism but
does not claim to be able to "prove" the assumptions.
Lastly (for now), there is another hidden assumption there, i.e. that
the "human brain" is somehow separate and apart from the rest of life
on Earth. Again, if you start out assuming that humans are "special"
then it is not surprising that you find reasons to *believe* humans
are special. Conversely, if you look at humans as one example of life
on Earth, it is not hard to realize that the human brain can't be the
most complex thing on Earth, since it is only the result of a vast and
ancient interlocking process of life far more complex in its entirety
than any few pounds of neural tissue.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
dkomo
>
> at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation of
> life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
> “Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?”
> http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
>
I keep pointing out that before you can apply a probability argument
to any process, you *must* show that the process is governed by chance
to begin with. If it is in fact deterministic, your analysis can be
completely invalid. Imagine how inane it would be, for example, to
try derive the orbits of the planets in the solar system using a
probability argument and ignoring the laws of celestial dynamics.
Thus Dembski, who is not a scientist, simply assumes that his
probability arguments regarding life are meaningful without presenting
any evidence or justification that life can be treated as a chance
process.
TomS
<9s0e3ucihppeqmu65...@4ax.com>, Jon stated..."
Perhaps some mathematician can enlighten us, but I thought
that there were, in mathematics, non-empty sets with a probability
of zero ("measure zero", I believe is the technical expression).
So, in some sense, even a probability zero doesn't mean impossible.
On the other hand, we can easily do computations to show that
lots of events which happened appear to have very low probability.
What about the explosion of the Hindenberg?
The Hindenburg had 200,000 cubic meters of hydrogen gas. That
converts to 2x10^8 liters, or about 9x10^6 moles of molecular hydrogen,
or 5x10^29 molecules. (~22 liters/mole of a gas at STP, Avogadro's
number ~6x10^23)
The surrounding atmosphere is about 20% oxygen. Thus the
probability that each of those molecules of hydrogen would join, by
chance, to an oxygen atom (rather than a nitrogen atom) is
(1/5)^(5x10^29).
So the probability of the Hindenburg explosion occuring by chance
is less than 10^(-3x10^29). That's one chance in 1 followed by 300
octillion zeros. The probability that abiogenesis happened by chance
is many times greater than that.
Tom S.
~
Michael Altarriba
Mark & Roslyn Elkington wrote:
> I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive
> reading, thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading,
> thinking... But as my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad
> Altiora (through struggles to the heights).
>
I'm a big fan of thinking, posting, arguing, learning and reading, but
what is "stoushing" ?
<snip>
>
> If we were to re-run the universe an infinite number of times, using
> similar initial conditions and the same physical laws, but
> randomly re-seeding it each time, would we ever see a universe
> composed entirely of plastics spoons in shades of the colour blue?
If you are using the same physical laws, then how do you get similar (as
opposed to the same) initial conditions and a random re-seeding? What
quantities or qualities are you varying? I'm particularly confused by
this since it's anyone's guess what our Universe was like (if we can
even use that phrase> earlier than a Planck time after "t = 0".
> The answer is no; the probability of this is not just very small, it
> is zero, at least according to my understanding of the laws of
> physics and the hypothesised formation and distribution of matter
> and energy in space-time. My point: many forms and assemblies of matter
> are impossible, of probability zero, through purely natural
> processes in our universe.
I could, however, imagine something like a tree that grows something
like plastic spoons... or even sporks.
>
> Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising
> ,etc) in this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never
> prove that it is (i.e. we can't prove a negative), though we could
> prove the inverse, by producing such a thing in the lab under
> simulated natural conditions.
More likely, we could infer that it happened based on experimentation
and evidence. Proof is for criminal courts and mathematical theorems.
>
> Let's grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim
> that abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and
> the time available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all
> such claims as argument from incredulity? Or is an event of
> probability less than 1 in 10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in
> 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
>
Can you provide a bit of detail to back up this "claim"? Without such
backup, it -is- nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
<snip>
>
> No hidden agenda here, just musing...
>
> Mark
>
>
> * Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment
> that the human brain is the most complex structure in the known
> universe.
Actually, in this case, the "known universe" is one planet, and parts of
a few others and their moons. To say that "we have barely scratched the
surface" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Dunk
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>I’m buggered. It’s all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
>thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
>my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
>the heights).
<snip>
>Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc) in
>this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is (i.e.
>we can’t prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by producing
>such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
>
>Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>available.
What are the odds, and how did you find out?
Dunk
Matt Silberstein
> I’m buggered. It’s all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
> thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> the heights).
>
> The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*? And what in between?
> The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
> self-replicating molecule, and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
> filtered by differential reproductive success?
>
are no more "chance" than a description of a burning log shows chance
formation of smoke: atoms seem to act in law-like manners. Abiogenesis
research looks for the formation of life via these law-like processes.
> As per my other recent posts, perhaps the ID approach will shed new light on
> this question. If not, by the admission of its exponents, it should “wither
> and die.” And anyway, without the likes of ID, t.o would all but pack up and
> go home.
Nope, there are those creationists who readily admit they are
promoting religion and still want it in schools. The ID proponents
make the largest current effort to get public and/or scientific
approval of their religious views, but they are not the only ones.
> A universe full of plastic spoons in shades of the colour blue:
>
> If we were to re-run the universe an infinite number of times, using similar
> initial conditions and the same physical laws, but randomly re-seeding it
> each time, would we ever see a universe composed entirely of plastics spoons
> in shades of the colour blue? The answer is no; the probability of this is
> not just very small, it is zero, at least according to my understanding of
> the laws of physics and the hypothesised formation and distribution of
> matter and energy in space-time. My point: many forms and assemblies of
> matter are impossible, of probability zero, through purely natural processes
> in our universe.
So far, so good. Too bad you make no attempt to connect the above with
anything else.
> Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc) in
> this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is (i.e.
> we can’t prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by producing
> such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
Actually Behe so much as claims he can prove a negative. He claims,
absent any support, that he can show that certain system could not
have evolved: i.e. the probability of their evolving is 0. Of course
he also contradicts this claim, but he does claim it.
> Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
> abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
> available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
> argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
> 10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
So what was the bit about 0 probability for if you want to make this
quite distinct claim? And you still need to do the work of showing the
probability of the formation of life. Simply asserting that it is
unlikely does not make it unlikely. Kauffman in _Origins of Order_
claims that life might well be almost inevitable given a reasonable
set of circumstances. The difference between your position and his is
that he has done the work (and shows his work).
> A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to attempts
> at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation of
> life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
> “Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?”
> http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
Wow, he actually admits that science does allow design as a cause. He
seems miles above Dembski and Behe.
That said, I don't see how his logic works. Doesn't the formation of
raindrops fit his notion of purpose? Is not, why not? If so, where is
the agency?
Second, his notion of Nature as a purposeful agent seems to remove any
meaning to the concept of purposeful agents. Given that nature as a
whole is a purposeful agent, then of course the things we see are the
result of a purposeful agent.
He also seems to argue againt ultra-darwinism ("each succeeding form
would have had ... a decisive advantage in reproductive fitness").
Sorry, but science has gone on from there.
Then, having accepted Behe's IC as valid, he makes the astounding
comment that "there are many cases, such as the design of the first
self-replicating molecule, the laws and constants of physics, the
earth, the solar system, or the Milky Way galaxy, for which Darwinian
explanations in terms of natural selection are unavailable". Well,
duh. Of course we have no NS explanation for the Milky Way. NS is
about *life*. I really do not expect an error this silly from someone
who can actually write. I don't see any need to read any more after
that blunder.
> No hidden agenda here, just musing...
You may not have a hidden agenda, but the ISCID seems to. We have Behe
and Dembski and Mims and Wells. Do these guys do any work or just
start new societies to publish their work?
> Mark
>
>
> * Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
> human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
How could that possibly be? You imply, for example, that a human brain
is more complex than many human brains. I know of know meaningful
definition of "complex" that supports your claim.
rossum
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>I’m buggered. It’s all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
>thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
>my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
>the heights).
>
>The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
could be a *long* way down the line yet.
rossum
Alan Barclay
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> The surrounding atmosphere is about 20% oxygen. Thus the
>probability that each of those molecules of hydrogen would join, by
>chance, to an oxygen atom (rather than a nitrogen atom) is
>(1/5)^(5x10^29).
Only if the chances of an oxygen molecule reacting with hydrogen is
the same as the chance of a nitrogen molecule reacting. Of course
they aren't. Each and every different possible chemical reaction
has a set of probabilities of occuring under different conditions.
Under atmospheric conditions, the chance of 2 H2 + O2 reacting
to give 2 H2O is hugely more likely than H2 + N2 reacting. In real
terms, the chances of H2 in an atmosphere containing O2 combusting
is 1.
Similarly, the nieve calculations of abiogenesis based simply upon
the number of atoms in DNA is wrong, because it doesn't take into
consideration the variation in the probabilities of the various
reactions taking place.
Noelie S. Alito
> On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
> >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> >the heights).
> >
> >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
>
> Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
> could be a *long* way down the line yet.
Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe,
and all the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just
the otherwise useless tailings of the process. I am also, as
you may note, much less probable than H.s.s., as further
evidence of the wonder of the Universe.
<snip>
> >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
> >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
Ah, I remember: Complex as in the most hacked-up legacy product
as any string of underpaid design teams can make.
Personally, I'd say a human brain was clearly less complex than
a Man-o-War.
<http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/portugue.html>
Noelie
--
"Mistress Weatherwax, you are a natural disputant."
"No I ain't!"
dkomo
>
> > >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
> > >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
>
> Ah, I remember: Complex as in the most hacked-up legacy product
> as any string of underpaid design teams can make.
>
Does this imply that Windows XP is the most complex structure in the
known universe? After all, thousands of human brains went into its
construction.
Who would have thought that Windows XP is the end product of 4 billion
years of abiogenesis and subsequent evolution of life?
Wade Hines
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
<<< snip s.o.s. >>>
> Ah, I remember: Complex as in the most hacked-up legacy product
> as any string of underpaid design teams can make.
But as complex as what an overpaid design team can make? You
know, the types who have multiple re-use redesign committees?
Richard Harter
wrote:
>"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:3c37923b...@news.netcomuk.co.uk...
>> On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
>> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
>> >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
>> >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
>> >the heights).
>> >
>> >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
>>
>> Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
>> could be a *long* way down the line yet.
>
>Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe,
>and all the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just
>the otherwise useless tailings of the process. I am also, as
>you may note, much less probable than H.s.s., as further
>evidence of the wonder of the Universe.
Noelie is absolutely right about this. I was talking to God the other
day and asked him about the purpose of life, the universe, and
everything. At first He said "42", and we both got a chuckle out of
that. Then He said, "Noelie. The life, the universe, and everything
is Noelie." Then He shook His head and said, "Somehow it just doesn't
seem worth it."
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Love, no matter how pure, is the most selfish of gifts.
For that reason it is the one gift that must be given.
stew dean
> thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> the heights).
>
> The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*? And what in between?
> The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
> self-replicating molecule, and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
> filtered by differential reproductive success?
You missed out self maintaining molecules. And the filtering is via
the environment - differential reproductive success I think was used
by Nando once and misguiding.
> As per my other recent posts, perhaps the ID approach will shed new light on
> this question. If not, by the admission of its exponents, it should "wither
> and die." And anyway, without the likes of ID, t.o would all but pack up and
> go home.
The problem with ID is it creates more questions than it answers. It
also presuposes the nature of intelligence. In short ID is a theory of
the gaps (despite what is said). It's the kind of trick alien believes
use that means a positive UFO sighting is translated into a alien
space craft.
> A universe full of plastic spoons in shades of the colour blue:
>
> If we were to re-run the universe an infinite number of times, using similar
> initial conditions and the same physical laws, but randomly re-seeding it
> each time, would we ever see a universe composed entirely of plastics spoons
> in shades of the colour blue?
You can have an infinite amount of outcomes but many states are
impossible. It's a common mistake to say given infinite amounts of
chances the impossible will become possible. If the nature of the
system simple does not allow a given output then no matter how many
monkeys you get for an infinite amount of time then you'll never get
you play.
> The answer is no; the probability of this is
> not just very small, it is zero, at least according to my understanding of
> the laws of physics and the hypothesised formation and distribution of
> matter and energy in space-time. My point: many forms and assemblies of
> matter are impossible, of probability zero, through purely natural processes
> in our universe.
>
Exactly.
> Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc) in
> this category, i.e. of probability zero?
No. It's very high.
> We can never prove that it is (i.e.
> we can't prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by producing
> such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
>
Life doesnt have to be biological you now.
> Let's grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
> abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
> available.
Totaly disagree. It's worth understand the system that is life and
seeing how chemical evolution faded into what we call biology.
> Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
> argument from incredulity?
The problem with all this talk of probability is unless you know how
it happened all odds are totaly fabricated.
C. Thompson
(snip)
> As per my other recent posts, perhaps the ID approach will shed new light on
> this question. If not, by the admission of its exponents, it should “wither
> and die.” And anyway, without the likes of ID, t.o would all but pack up and
> go home.
(snip)
Why do you say that? Granted, what seems like an inordinate amount of
time here seems to be spent bash^H^H^H educating creationists, but
unlike religion, evolutionary biology is not static- there are still
plenty of things to learn, fossils to find and categorize, relationships
to uncover, gaps to fill, puns to make (couldn't resist).
There's TONS of stuff to talk about on t.o.
Biologists are not the crackers in "The Martian Chronicles". Perhaps
IDists are defined by their "opponent"; we are not.
Chris
--
Remove the obvious spam-gagger when replying please.
C. Thompson
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message
<2b68957a.02010...@posting.google.com>):
[...]
> You can have an infinite amount of outcomes but many states are
> impossible. It's a common mistake to say given infinite amounts of
> chances the impossible will become possible. If the nature of the
> system simple does not allow a given output then no matter how many
> monkeys you get for an infinite amount of time then you'll never get
> you play.
I have a terrible time trying to point this out to my missus when
'explaining' why I'm not concerned that a GA will 'run amok'.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint:
A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0
Bobby D. Bryant
> On 5 Jan 2002 19:45:15 -0500, "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com>
> wrote:
>>Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe, and all
>>the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just the otherwise
>>useless tailings of the process. I am also, as you may note, much
>>less probable than H.s.s., as further evidence of the wonder of the
>>Universe.
>
> Noelie is absolutely right about this. I was talking to God the other
> day and asked him about the purpose of life, the universe, and
> everything. At first He said "42", and we both got a chuckle out of
> that. Then He said, "Noelie. The life, the universe, and everything
> is Noelie." Then He shook His head and said, "Somehow it just doesn't
> seem worth it."
Sounds like we'd better start gathering plywood and drogue stones, and
rounding up our favorite animals.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> The problem with ID is it creates more questions than it answers. It
> also presuposes the nature of intelligence. In short ID is a theory of
> the gaps (despite what is said). It's the kind of trick alien believes
> use that means a positive UFO sighting is translated into a alien
> space craft.
I wonder if there's a book market for a grand unifying theory over ID
and UFOlogy?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bonz
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
>argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
>10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
Nope. They happen all the time. The odds of dealing out a single,
standard 52 card deck in any particular order is 52! or 8.06e+67
Now think about how many decks of cards have been dealt out in all the
casinos in the world, and what the odds were that EVERY SINGLE CARD in
EVERY SINGLE DEAL would be in THAT exact order.
If huge odds like you describe above were at all unusual, then casinos
and deserts couldn't exist. What is the change that all the trillions
of grains of sand in the desert would be in those EXACT positions at
this EXACT moment?
¤¤ Bonz a.a 1497
BAAWA knight
John Wilkins
Unfortunately, the parts of the brains it uses did not include the
higher cortex. Mostly the medulla...
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
Bonz <bo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:u7qf3ucubv5c92fap...@4ax.com...
Yes, true as such. Though because so many other valid configurations of
deserts, the probability of *a* desert of some sort forming is nothing
special. This issue is addressed directly by the "specified" part of CSI.
All the same, it seems to me that at some fundamental level probability must
feature in the argument against naturalistic origins. If this probability is
can be shown to be sufficiently small, then perhaps the tables are turned
and belief in purely naturalistic origins itself becomes an "argument from
credulity", or, "probabilistically irrational incredulity" at supernatural
intervention (aka ontological naturalism).
Mark
gen2rev
> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:3c37923b...@news.netcomuk.co.uk...
> > On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> > <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
> > >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> > >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> > >the heights).
> > >
> > >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
> >
> > Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
> > could be a *long* way down the line yet.
>
> Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe,
> and all the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just
> the otherwise useless tailings of the process.
Well, let me be the first in a long line of boot-licking toadies to
say "All Hail Noelie, Queen of the Universe!!!"
(Although I can't help but think that I'm committing some form of
Pascalian Wager here.)
> I am also, as
> you may note, much less probable than H.s.s., as further
> evidence of the wonder of the Universe.
Hail Noelie, and her Wild Improbability!
> <snip>
>
> > >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
> > >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
>
> Ah, I remember: Complex as in the most hacked-up legacy product
> as any string of underpaid design teams can make.
>
> Personally, I'd say a human brain was clearly less complex than
> a Man-o-War.
>
> <http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/portugue.html>
All Hail Noelie's Pets!
gen2rev
Just how do you (or anyone else) intend to show that the probability
is small? At this point in time we have only one example of life,
since all life on Earth seems to be based on the same biochemistry.
Who knows how many other viable biochemistries there are? It's as if
only one hand of cards has been dealt so far in the game, and the
players think that it's the only hand possible.
Back to the desert analogy, you write that "Though because so many
other valid configurations of deserts, the probability of *a* desert
of some sort forming is nothing special." Isn't it possible that
because there may be so many other valid configurations of Life, the
probability of Life of some sort forming is nothing special?
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Mark & Roslyn Elkington" <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> news:<w_VZ7.1759$ko4.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au>...
>> Yes, true as such. Though because so many other valid configurations
>> of deserts, the probability of *a* desert of some sort forming is
>> nothing special. This issue is addressed directly by the "specified"
>> part of CSI.
>>
>> All the same, it seems to me that at some fundamental level
>> probability must feature in the argument against naturalistic
>> origins. If this probability is can be shown to be sufficiently
>> small, then perhaps the tables are turned and belief in purely
>> naturalistic origins itself becomes an "argument from credulity", or,
>> "probabilistically irrational incredulity" at supernatural
>> intervention (aka ontological naturalism).
>
> Just how do you (or anyone else) intend to show that the probability
> is small? At this point in time we have only one example of life,
> since all life on Earth seems to be based on the same biochemistry.
> Who knows how many other viable biochemistries there are? It's as if
> only one hand of cards has been dealt so far in the game, and the
> players think that it's the only hand possible.
>
> Back to the desert analogy, you write that "Though because so many
> other valid configurations of deserts, the probability of *a* desert
> of some sort forming is nothing special." Isn't it possible that
> because there may be so many other valid configurations of Life, the
> probability of Life of some sort forming is nothing special?
I still want to know who gets to "specify" which configurations count as
special and which don't. If Dembski does, we get one result; if gen2rev
or I get to do the specifying, I suspect that we might get a different
result altogether.
Am I to let Dembski claim that his Designer did the specifying, told
Dembski what he specified (and didn't tell me [snivel]), and then let
Dembski use that as the basis of his 'proof' that his Designer actually
exists?
(if (circular? argument )
(write "Pfffffft!")
(write "Wow!"))
Pfffffft!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David Jensen
"Mark & Roslyn Elkington" <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
<w_VZ7.1759$ko4.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au>:
>Yes, true as such. Though because so many other valid configurations of
>deserts, the probability of *a* desert of some sort forming is nothing
>special. This issue is addressed directly by the "specified" part of CSI.
Right now there are more than six billion unique examples of valid
configurations of humans.
Noelie S. Alito
I suspect there's a much higher correlation with quality of
management than with the pay scale of the designers.
Noelie
--
"It's just a bunch of typing, and most of the words are misspelled." --PHB
Ron Okimoto
> news:u7qf3ucubv5c92fap...@4ax.com...
> > On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> > <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Let's grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
> > >abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
> > >available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
> > >argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
> > >10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
> >
> > Nope. They happen all the time. The odds of dealing out a single,
> > standard 52 card deck in any particular order is 52! or 8.06e+67
> >
> > Now think about how many decks of cards have been dealt out in all the
> > casinos in the world, and what the odds were that EVERY SINGLE CARD in
> > EVERY SINGLE DEAL would be in THAT exact order.
> >
> > If huge odds like you describe above were at all unusual, then casinos
> > and deserts couldn't exist. What is the change that all the trillions
> > of grains of sand in the desert would be in those EXACT positions at
> > this EXACT moment?
>
> Yes, true as such. Though because so many other valid configurations of
> deserts, the probability of *a* desert of some sort forming is nothing
> special. This issue is addressed directly by the "specified" part of CSI.
What is "specified" and how does it relate to the limit on the
possible working outcomes? Look at your immune system in less than
10^11 events you get a functional antibody that did not do that
specified task before. You can even get enzymatic activities. The
limits on this system are much greater than the simple limits implied
by "specified." You have a specific starting sequence that
accumulates arbitrary mutations and is selected to have a specified
function (bind a specific antibody). Only a small fraction of the
possible variation is exploited to evolve these new abilities. This
tells any thinking person that the wild probability estimates
calculated by creationist are bogus. Their probability estimates
obviously have to account for the ability for new enzymatic activities
to evolve in less than 10^11 events.
Naturalistic evolutionary process limits the probabilities even more
than any initial specification. Evolution is limited by what has gone
on before. Certain things have already happened, certain proteins
already exist and nature has to work with what it has. It doesn't
rebuild from scratch each new innovation. This is a plus and a minus.
It limits the potential variation available, but it also means that
to calculate meaningful probabilities you have to know the steps that
were taken in the process. The antibody example tells us that the
steps aren't as impossible as the creationist claim. Biomolecules are
more plastic and do not have the specified limits that you claim. The
probability estimates are bogus at this time.
If you take the playing card example, you deal a five card hand in a
specified order (10, J, Q, K, A all of spades). Throw in selection.
The probability of drawing a 10 is 1 in 52, once you have the 10 the
chance of drawing a jack is 1 in 51, once you have the 10, J, Q, and K
the chance of drawing the ace is only 1 in 48. This probability is
much less than any probability that the creationist would calculate.
Creationist forget that lifeforms reproduce. Once you evolve the 10
you get a population of 10 of spades, and one of them is apparently
very likely to evolve the Jack of spades. You then get a population
of 10, Jacks etc. The immune system tells us that it isn't as hard to
get the 10 of spades as the creationist keep telling us. We can
obviously get it in less than 10^11 events with severe limits placed
on the potential variation that can be exploited.
>
> All the same, it seems to me that at some fundamental level probability must
> feature in the argument against naturalistic origins. If this probability is
> can be shown to be sufficiently small, then perhaps the tables are turned
> and belief in purely naturalistic origins itself becomes an "argument from
> credulity", or, "probabilistically irrational incredulity" at supernatural
> intervention (aka ontological naturalism).
>
> Mark
You might have something if you could estimate the probability
accurately. You obviously cannot if you can't account for the
antibody examples. The creationists deal with the antibody example
with misdirection. They claim that the mutation rate is greater (big
deal, the mutations are still arbitrary), and they claim that the
mutations are limited to certain parts of the gene (this only limits
the potential variation that the system could exploit and makes new
enzymatic activities even less likely). They can't deal with the fact
that arbitrary mutations and selection can develope new enzymatic
activities and do it in less than 10^11 events. Only 10^11 total
cells are generated in an immune response and you will generate the
specified outcome nearly every time you subject the system to it.
Your immune system rarely fails to create specified antibodies to
specific antigens, so the probability of generating these proteins is
much less than the 10^11 events that it is limited too.
Get your creationist sources to apply their probability estimates to
the immune system's ability to form new enzymatic activities and see
what they get. If it is their usual 10^-60 or less they could start
claiming that the designer is fiddling with everyones (and all animals
with one) immune system. What a crock. Why would we need an immune
system if the designer could make the antibodies any other way? Sure,
there is a possiblity that some supernatural being was making every
shark's and rat's immune system work on a daily basis, but how would
you demonstrate that this was true? Your probability estimates won't
help you.
Their probability estimates are bogus. If they want to invoke the
notion that the immune system was designed to beat the odds, why can
we generate new enzymatic functions using it, when it was designed to
generate something else?
Ron Okimoto
Noelie S. Alito
> On 5 Jan 2002 19:45:15 -0500, "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:3c37923b...@news.netcomuk.co.uk...
> >> On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> >> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
> >> >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> >> >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> >> >the heights).
> >> >
> >> >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
> >>
> >> Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
> >> could be a *long* way down the line yet.
> >
> >Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe,
> >and all the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just
> >the otherwise useless tailings of the process. I am also, as
> >you may note, much less probable than H.s.s., as further
> >evidence of the wonder of the Universe.
>
> Noelie is absolutely right about this. I was talking to God the other
> day and asked him about the purpose of life, the universe, and
> everything. At first He said "42", and we both got a chuckle out of
> that. Then He said, "Noelie. The life, the universe, and everything
> is Noelie." Then He shook His head and said, "Somehow it just doesn't
> seem worth it."
Hey, not my problem. Pass the Twinkies, Jerry Springer is coming on.
<belch>
Noelie
--
"Hey! Who you callin' a 'lady'?"
Noelie S. Alito
> Mark & Roslyn Elkington wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > As per my other recent posts, perhaps the ID approach will shed new light on
> > this question. If not, by the admission of its exponents, it should "wither
> > and die." And anyway, without the likes of ID, t.o would all but pack up and
> > go home.
> (snip)
>
> Why do you say that? Granted, what seems like an inordinate amount of
> time here seems to be spent bash^H^H^H educating creationists, but
> unlike religion, evolutionary biology is not static- there are still
> plenty of things to learn, fossils to find and categorize, relationships
> to uncover, gaps to fill, puns to make (couldn't resist).
Religion is definitely not static. It changes from generation to
generation, from person to person, from charismatic speech
to charismatic speech. Many religions merely claim to be
unchanged.
> There's TONS of stuff to talk about on t.o.
>
> Biologists are not the crackers in "The Martian Chronicles". Perhaps
> IDists are defined by their "opponent"; we are not.
Noelie
--
"Well, I can't hear a thing. Let's go to a stoning!" --Brian's mum
Dunk
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>Bonz <bo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
>news:u7qf3ucubv5c92fap...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
>> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Let's grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>> >abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>> >available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
>> >argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
>> >10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
>>
>> Nope. They happen all the time. The odds of dealing out a single,
>> standard 52 card deck in any particular order is 52! or 8.06e+67
>>
>> Now think about how many decks of cards have been dealt out in all the
>> casinos in the world, and what the odds were that EVERY SINGLE CARD in
>> EVERY SINGLE DEAL would be in THAT exact order.
>>
>> If huge odds like you describe above were at all unusual, then casinos
>> and deserts couldn't exist. What is the change that all the trillions
>> of grains of sand in the desert would be in those EXACT positions at
>> this EXACT moment?
>
>Yes, true as such. Though because so many other valid configurations of
>deserts, the probability of *a* desert of some sort forming is nothing
>special. This issue is addressed directly by the "specified" part of CSI.
>
>All the same, it seems to me that at some fundamental level probability must
>feature in the argument against naturalistic origins.
Whatever anyone else says, you get points for saying " it seems to me"
rather than leaving off the last two words. It is very to forget "to
me" and lure oneself into thinking that some "it" out there does the
seeming.
Dunk
Dunk
>><snip>
>>>Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>>>abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>>>available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
>>>argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
>>>10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
>>
>>An event for which the probability is exactly and identically zero is
>>impossible. An event for which the probability in nonzero is
>>possible.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>
> Perhaps some mathematician can enlighten us, but I thought
>that there were, in mathematics, non-empty sets with a probability
>of zero ("measure zero", I believe is the technical expression).
>So, in some sense, even a probability zero doesn't mean impossible.
Yes that is true. Probability, defined just right, is an example of a
measure over the interval [0,1] and there are nonempty sets of measure
zero. For instance, any single point is an example. If you integrate
over the interval [a,a] you get zero.
More interestingly, there are infinite sets of measure zero.
But this depends on the real number system and continous functions.
Here, were are concerned with discrete probability. Indeed, finite
probability (all sets under consideration are finite).
Dunk
Robt Gotschall
mar...@zeta.org.au says...
>
> it seems to me that at some fundamental level probability must
> feature in the argument against naturalistic origins. If this probability is
> can be shown to be sufficiently small, then perhaps the tables are turned
> and belief in purely naturalistic origins itself becomes an "argument from
> credulity", or, "probabilistically irrational incredulity" at supernatural
> intervention (aka ontological naturalism).
>
> Mark
probability: 4. The relative possibility that an event will
occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of
actual occurrences to the total number of possible
occurrences.
Copyright © 1966-1994 by Random House Inc., All Rights Reserved.
So we have a ratio between many actual (natural) events and a
gigraciously huge number of possible events.
Compare this with absolutely zero, zed, zip, supernatural events.
Even if I were to allow the Big Bang as a supernatural event, that's only
one compared to the myriad creationism requires. Probability would still
be against you.
--
rg
remove spam to mail
http://home.att.net/~hobgots/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
Robt Gotschall
says...
> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:3c37923b...@news.netcomuk.co.uk...
> > On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> > <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
> > >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> > >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> > >the heights).
> > >
> > >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
> >
> > Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
> > could be a *long* way down the line yet.
>
> Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe,
> and all the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just
> the otherwise useless tailings of the process. I am also, as
> you may note, much less probable than H.s.s., as further
> evidence of the wonder of the Universe.
Uh, would you be available for worship? Nothing extravagant, a bit of
self flagellation and a bang or two on the head with this here board
should see me through.
> <snip>
>
> > >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
> > >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
>
> Ah, I remember: Complex as in the most hacked-up legacy product
> as any string of underpaid design teams can make.
>
> Personally, I'd say a human brain was clearly less complex than
> a Man-o-War.
>
> <http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/portugue.html>
> Noelie
Well I don't think that the typical human brain will even float. I
couldn't say if this extends to everyone, especially those whose names
end in "O".
Noelie S. Alito
news:MPG.16a21aed6...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <a186mt$os4ie$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de>, noe...@deadspam.com
> says...
> > "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:3c37923b...@news.netcomuk.co.uk...
> > > On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> > > <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
> > > >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> > > >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> > > >the heights).
> > > >
> > > >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
> > >
> > > Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
> > > could be a *long* way down the line yet.
> >
> > Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe,
> > and all the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just
> > the otherwise useless tailings of the process. I am also, as
> > you may note, much less probable than H.s.s., as further
> > evidence of the wonder of the Universe.
>
> Uh, would you be available for worship? Nothing extravagant, a bit of
> self flagellation and a bang or two on the head with this here board
> should see me through.
Hey, knock yourself out.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
> > > >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
> >
> > Ah, I remember: Complex as in the most hacked-up legacy product
> > as any string of underpaid design teams can make.
> >
> > Personally, I'd say a human brain was clearly less complex than
> > a Man-o-War.
> >
> > <http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/portugue.html>
>
>
> Well I don't think that the typical human brain will even float. I
> couldn't say if this extends to everyone, especially those whose names
> end in "O".
The typical human brain is mostly fat, and fat floats.
Noelie AlitO
--
"What do you think, I'm dumb or sumpin'?" --Lina Lamont, _SitR_
Tom McHale
2. Our essence is electrical.
3. The obvious purpose of the bio- chemical process is to provide a
support system to make electrical thought process and expression
possible, thus our essence.
4. There is no chance or accident. There is cause and effect only.
5. While it is true in quantum mechanics , the more accurately we are
able to establish position, the less accurately we are able to establish
movement (velocity), this is a result of our as yet inability to resolve
this dilemma 'superior methods and instruments would be the probable
answer', and in no way provides any credence to the existence of
accident or chance. The foregoing is derived from Heisenberg's 'The
uncertainty principle'.
6. The question as to whether we are self sufficient electro bio
chemical units or whether an other dimensional controlling entity is
involved is currently unresolved.
stew dean
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:07:58 +1100 the muse struck stew dean, who
> wrote (in message
> <2b68957a.02010...@posting.google.com>):
> [...]
> > You can have an infinite amount of outcomes but many states are
> > impossible. It's a common mistake to say given infinite amounts of
> > chances the impossible will become possible. If the nature of the
> > system simple does not allow a given output then no matter how many
> > monkeys you get for an infinite amount of time then you'll never get
> > you play.
>
> I have a terrible time trying to point this out to my missus when
> 'explaining' why I'm not concerned that a GA will 'run amok'.
>
intelligence. Bill Joy (of Sun), for example, is terrified what will
happen when we reach human level intelligence in an artificial mind.
But then he appears to be obsessed with robots - it was his musings in
a article published in Wired. Wouldnt be so bad but he had lunch with
both Ray Kurtsweil and Danny Hillis who both told him not to worry.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
Ah well.
cats...@yahoo.com
>1. We are electro bio chemical units.
I'm not a biologist, but that is also my understanding. Of course,
billions of philosophers / theologists would not agree that that is
the sum total of humans.
>
>2. Our essence is electrical.
Interesting philosophy. Why choose the bio-electrical over the
bio-chemical as our "essence"?
>
>3. The obvious purpose of the bio- chemical process is to provide a
>support system to make electrical thought process and expression
>possible, thus our essence.
What is obvious about this?
>
>4. There is no chance or accident. There is cause and effect only.
Go have that argument with Marty Fouts.
>
>5. While it is true in quantum mechanics , the more accurately we are
>able to establish position, the less accurately we are able to establish
>movement (velocity), this is a result of our as yet inability to resolve
>this dilemma 'superior methods and instruments would be the probable
>answer', and in no way provides any credence to the existence of
>accident or chance. The foregoing is derived from Heisenberg's 'The
>uncertainty principle'.
I suspect the above is missing some punctuation, some sentence parts,
or both.
>
>6. The question as to whether we are self sufficient electro bio
>chemical units or whether an other dimensional controlling entity is
>involved is currently unresolved.
>
"Other dimentional"? Uh huh. BWT what, if anything, does this have
to do with my prior post. Or Mark's for that matter.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Michael Altarriba
I found Bill Joy's "manifesto" to be profoundly silly. Science fiction
authors have been working through these concerns of his for over a
decade. The media latched onto it because it makes a cute little
modern-day psuedo-Frankenstein story, thereby more easily increasing the
value of their advertising slots. Were it not for their disire for
something "exciting" to report on, his manifesto would have remained in
well-deserved obscurity.
The possibilities inherent in self-replicating molecular sturctures and
strong artificial intelligence present very real concerns... his "Robots
will take over the world!" or "The nanobomb will be the end of the
world!" fears are not.
Bob Pease
> BAAWA knight
There's something nonsensical about both sides of this argument.
I think it has a lot to do with the concepts of Apropri vs. a Posterori
Probability.
I would deem it "Impossible" for the sequence of Casino hands in on day to
be dealt the same way AGAIN.
The fact that it DID happen this way is not related to any argument pro or
con as to whether id DID versus "Could happen again.
Indeed, the probability of SOME sequence existing is 1.
RJ Pease
Tom McHale
lotteries 'even bigger thieves' . The probability advantage at the
casino depends of course on the game. From the player point of view, a
knowledgeable player can cut the house advantage to less that 1% on 21.
A knowledgeable poker player can beat the house odds provided he hits
and runs because the house take on each hand will eventually break every
player at the table. Casinos are now copying state thieves and paying
large winnings over 20 and 30 years. This is not only insulting but
costly. The interest on the money you have won is stolen from you.
Additioally the country is operating on monoply money for more than 68
years and installment payments on money stolen from you will buy less
and less. A thief is a thief, is a thief.
The smaller probability advantage of casions is consistent. In dice, for
every 21 straight passes at a Puerto Rican casino, there are 23 snake
eyes or equivlent at another casino. This consistency provides the
highly profitable margin of casinos. This margin varies with other
games. Probabilty is always consistent, though variable, and the House
is always the winner.
John Wilkins
> In article <w_VZ7.1759$ko4.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au>,
> mar...@zeta.org.au says...
>
> >
> > it seems to me that at some fundamental level probability must
> > feature in the argument against naturalistic origins. If this probability is
> > can be shown to be sufficiently small, then perhaps the tables are turned
> > and belief in purely naturalistic origins itself becomes an "argument from
> > credulity", or, "probabilistically irrational incredulity" at supernatural
> > intervention (aka ontological naturalism).
> >
> > Mark
>
> probability: 4. The relative possibility that an event will
> occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of
> actual occurrences to the total number of possible
> occurrences.
Frequentist! Heretic! Burn him! Make a bridge out of him!
>
> Copyright © 1966-1994 by Random House Inc., All Rights Reserved.
>
> So we have a ratio between many actual (natural) events and a
> gigraciously huge number of possible events.
>
> Compare this with absolutely zero, zed, zip, supernatural events.
>
> Even if I were to allow the Big Bang as a supernatural event, that's only
> one compared to the myriad creationism requires. Probability would still
> be against you.
--
Martin Crisp
<2b68957a.02010...@posting.google.com>):
> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<01HW.B85E35450...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:07:58 +1100 the muse struck stew dean, who
>> wrote (in message
>> <2b68957a.02010...@posting.google.com>):
>> [...]
>>> You can have an infinite amount of outcomes but many states are
>>> impossible. It's a common mistake to say given infinite amounts of
>>> chances the impossible will become possible. If the nature of the
>>> system simple does not allow a given output then no matter how many
>>> monkeys you get for an infinite amount of time then you'll never get
>>> you play.
>>
>> I have a terrible time trying to point this out to my missus when
>> 'explaining' why I'm not concerned that a GA will 'run amok'.
>>
> I think this is mirrored by many peoples fear of artificial
> intelligence. Bill Joy (of Sun), for example, is terrified what will
> happen when we reach human level intelligence in an artificial mind.
http://www.tecsoc.org/innovate/focusbilljoy.htm
> But then he appears to be obsessed with robots - it was his musings in
> a article published in Wired. Wouldnt be so bad but he had lunch with
> both Ray Kurtsweil and Danny Hillis who both told him not to worry.
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
Reads like the sensationalist BS that keeps me away from the TV.
"Uncontrolled self-replication in these newer technologies runs a
much greater risk: a risk of substantial damage in the physical
world." pg3
Uncontrolled? So _no_ resources are consumed in reproducing these
machines? _Wow!_ [Wherefore is this implicit non-physical world?]
[There are a couple of scenes in _The Matrix_ which really get on my
goat, one is Hugo Weaving going on about reclassifying humans as
viruses; the other about growing humans as as source of energy to
run the machines - rather central to the plot, really - after solar
power was denied them.
"Thursday nights my parents went bowling, and we kids stayed home
alone. It was the night of Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek,
and the program made a big impression on me." pg3
Uh-huh. What a touching biography...
"Given the incredible power of these new technologies, shouldn't we
be asking how we can best coexist with them? And if our own
extinction is a likely, or even possible, outcome of our
technological development, shouldn't we proceed with great caution?"
pg4
Sure. And as observed elsewhere, we should ban the wheel and fire
while we're at it.
Of course the author failed to note that _proceeding_ with caution
is impossible if you halt research.
Feh. Was only skimming it, but really didn't see a lot of value in
doing more than that.
From the article title [Why the future doesn't need us] it seems
that Bill thought this was in doubt, rather than fairly bloody
obvious if he's done any reading in biology, geology, ... [hint: the
present, and past don't/didn't _need_ us, why on Earth would the
future? For that matter this planet isn't 'needed' either...]
> Ah well.
April Issue, given a book in the bar... If it wasn't for some of the
links off the URL above I'd have thought he was leg-pulling.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint:
A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0
Sverker Johansson
>
> I’m buggered. It’s all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
> thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
> my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
> the heights).
>
> The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
> self-replicating molecule, and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
> filtered by differential reproductive success?
That's what the evidence indicates, yes.
> As per my other recent posts, perhaps the ID approach will shed new light on
> this question. If not, by the admission of its exponents, it should “wither
> and die.” And anyway, without the likes of ID, t.o would all but pack up and
> go home.
>
> A universe full of plastic spoons in shades of the colour blue:
>
> If we were to re-run the universe an infinite number of times, using similar
> initial conditions and the same physical laws, but randomly re-seeding it
> each time,
OK. This is close enough to current ideas on chaotic inflation
and such, except that chaotic inflation runs infinite numbers
of "universe bubbles" in parallel.
Some variations on your theme, that partly answers the objections
of Michael Altarriba:
* Produce an infinite number of Big Bangs with the _same_ initial
conditions (whatever they may be like before the Planck time),
and then let the quantum dice fall as they may. This assumes
that quantum theory is fundamental, and that the quantum dice
are truly random, not just pseudorandom numbers in need of
re-seeding.
* Produce an infinite number of Big Bangs with the _same_ initial
conditions (whatever they may be like before the Planck time),
but with laws and constants that vary infinitesimally from ours.
> would we ever see a universe composed entirely of plastics spoons
> in shades of the colour blue? The answer is no; the probability of this is
> not just very small, it is zero, at least according to my understanding of
> the laws of physics and the hypothesised formation and distribution of
> matter and energy in space-time. My point: many forms and assemblies of
> matter are impossible, of probability zero, through purely natural processes
> in our universe.
Depends on what you count as "purely natural processes".
Scenario (slightly tongue-in-cheek...):
One of the intelligent beings in Universe Re-run MMMDCCXVII
decides to build a von-Neumann-machine in the shape of a blue
plastic spoon. The machine is released, and is soon busily
churning out replicas of itself, that in their turn manufacture
more replicas, and so on exponentially. Unfortunately, she forgot
to include an option to turn the things off, and it's a _good_
von-Neumann-machine, so it keeps on converting all matter
in the universe to blue spoons, in an explosion of exponential
growth. Pretty soon, within just a few trillion years,
all baryonic matter in the universe is converted to blue plastic
spoons.
If we assume that the intelligent beings themselves turned
up through purely natural processes, I would say that this
qualifies as a universe filling up with blue plastic
spoons through purely natural processes.
I am not saying that this is anything but a wildly improbable
scenario. However, my point is that you should be careful
with claiming _zero_ probability for anything.
> Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc) in
> this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is (i.e.
> we can’t prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by producing
> such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
>
> Let’s grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
> abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
> available. Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
> argument from incredulity? Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
> 10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
If the number of re-runs is much larger than the odds against an event
in any given re-run, the probability of the event happening in at least
one re-run approaches unity. This is true for any finite odds.
If you roll much more than six dice, you are effectively certain to
get at least one 6.
Since you are postulating an infinite number of re-runs, any event
with finite (non-zero) probability will eventually happen.
10^50^500^whatever does not matter, as long as it is finite.
With an infinite number of re-runs, there is no such thing as
"effectively impossible" -- either it is strictly impossible,
or it will happen.
> A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to attempts
> at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation of
> life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
> “Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?”
> http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
>
> No hidden agenda here, just musing...
Indeed. Your agenda isn't hidden, it is perfectly visible.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Derek Stevenson
news:3c38d7fe...@news-server.optonline.net...
> On 6 Jan 2002 15:37:14 -0500, Heyd...@webtv.net (Tom McHale) wrote:
[snip]
> >6. The question as to whether we are self sufficient electro bio
> >chemical units or whether an other dimensional controlling entity
is
> >involved is currently unresolved.
> >
> "Other dimentional"? Uh huh. BWT what, if anything, does this have
> to do with my prior post. Or Mark's for that matter.
Tom has more than once demonstrated himself to be, to use Louann's
term, "differently saned". Perhaps he meant "other dementianal".
Bill Jefferys
>The typical human brain is mostly fat, and fat floats.
>
>Noelie AlitO
Hence the term 'fathead'.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Matt Silberstein
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>On 5 Jan 2002 19:45:15 -0500, "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:3c37923b...@news.netcomuk.co.uk...
>>> On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
>>> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
>>> >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
>>> >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
>>> >the heights).
>>> >
>>> >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*?
>>>
>>> Not necessarily so. It might just be the alpha and the beta. Omega
>>> could be a *long* way down the line yet.
>>
>>Nope. The omega is here now: I am the goal of the Universe,
>>and all the other galaxies/biospheres/species/humans are just
>>the otherwise useless tailings of the process. I am also, as
>>you may note, much less probable than H.s.s., as further
>>evidence of the wonder of the Universe.
>
>Noelie is absolutely right about this. I was talking to God the other
>day and asked him about the purpose of life, the universe, and
>everything. At first He said "42", and we both got a chuckle out of
>that. Then He said, "Noelie. The life, the universe, and everything
>is Noelie." Then He shook His head and said, "Somehow it just doesn't
>seem worth it."
Suppose you thought you were God. Would that make you an optimist or a
pessimist?
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
There is safety in numbers and people and things
And big wads of money and great big diamond rings
J.O.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive reading,
>thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But as
>my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles to
>the heights).
>
>The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*? And what in between?
>The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
>self-replicating molecule,
Why do you assume it is chance, rather than due to the laws of
chemistry and physics.
>and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
>filtered by differential reproductive success?
[snip]
>Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc) in
>this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is (i.e.
>we can't prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by producing
>such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
>
>Let's grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>available.
If you don't know it's probability, how can you possibly say the odds
against are too high? What if Kauffman is correct, and the probability
is close to 1 (for earth like worlds with liquid water)
>Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
>argument from incredulity?
If it is based on a complete lack of understanding of what abiogenesis
is, and the current evidence for it, yes.
>Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
>10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to attempts
>at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation of
>life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
>"Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?"
>http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
rolling and chemistry.
>No hidden agenda here, just musing...
>
>Mark
>
>
>* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
>human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
By what measure? Cell types? Gut wins, Sub structures? gut still wins.
Number of neurotransmiters? The enteric nervous system (in the gut)
wins, Synapses per neurone (close call between enteric nervous system
and brain)? Dendritic arborization per neurone (no idea)? Total number
of synaptic connections[1] Compared to what? Rats? Chimps? Whales
(whales win in the total number of synaptic connections)?
[1] It is widely stated there is more connections in the brain then
there are stars in the galaxy/universe. However, this is not the same
thing as saying the human brain is the most complex thing in the
universe.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote in
message news:=ng6PA6JCacjGq8Ku=QO4f+...@4ax.com...
> G'Day All
> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
> On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> >I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive
reading,
> >thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading, thinking... But
as
> >my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad Altiora (through struggles
to
> >the heights).
> >
> >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*? And what in
between?
> >The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
> >self-replicating molecule,
>
> Why do you assume it is chance, rather than due to the laws of
> chemistry and physics.
Sure the laws chemical bonding etc etc apply, and fairly complex molecules
can form in accordance with these laws. My assumption that these laws do not
extend as far as prescribing the formation of seld replicating molecule is
only an assumption, but it seems a well supported one considering the
failure of life-in-test tube experiments to produce such a molecule.
After 50 years of abiogenesis experiments we have Miller's amino acids and
Fox's microspheres...an what else?
> >and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
> >filtered by differential reproductive success?
> [snip]
> >Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc)
in
> >this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is
(i.e.
> >we can't prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by
producing
> >such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
> >
> >Let's grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
> >abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
> >available.
>
> If you don't know it's probability, how can you possibly say the odds
> against are too high? What if Kauffman is correct, and the probability
> is close to 1 (for earth like worlds with liquid water)
"Let's grant for a moment" = "for argument's sake" = let's explore a
principle by assuming something and seeing where it leads.
> >Are you then entitled to dismiss this and all such claims as
> >argument from incredulity?
>
> If it is based on a complete lack of understanding of what abiogenesis
> is, and the current evidence for it, yes.
>
> >Or is an event of probability less than 1 in
> >10^50 effectively impossible? Or 1 in 10^500, 10^5000, 10^5000000?
>
> Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> >A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to
attempts
> >at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation
of
> >life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
> >"Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?"
> >http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
>
> If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
> rolling and chemistry.
Biology and chemistry are not exempt from mathematics, not even from the
laws of probability.
> >
> >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that
the
> >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
>
> By what measure? Cell types? Gut wins, Sub structures? gut still wins.
> Number of neurotransmiters? The enteric nervous system (in the gut)
> wins, Synapses per neurone (close call between enteric nervous system
> and brain)? Dendritic arborization per neurone (no idea)? Total number
> of synaptic connections[1] Compared to what? Rats? Chimps? Whales
> (whales win in the total number of synaptic connections)?
>
> [1] It is widely stated there is more connections in the brain then
> there are stars in the galaxy/universe. However, this is not the same
> thing as saying the human brain is the most complex thing in the
> universe.
Rather struggle with definitions here (and they do take some struggling), I
leave it the reader to make their own judgement on this. If anyone knows of
soemthing more complex, please call me at once.
rgds,
Mark
Richard Harter
wrote:
I would consider that I did quite well given that it was a throwaway
model.
>
>--
>Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
>
>There is safety in numbers and people and things
>And big wads of money and great big diamond rings
>
>J.O.
>
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Love, no matter how pure, is the most selfish of gifts.
For that reason it is the one gift that must be given.
PSWIN...@wlv.ac.uk
Robt Gotschall
john.w...@bigpond.com says...
> Robt Gotschall <hobgo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <w_VZ7.1759$ko4.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au>,
> > mar...@zeta.org.au says...
> >
> > >
> > > it seems to me that at some fundamental level probability must
> > > feature in the argument against naturalistic origins. If this probability is
> > > can be shown to be sufficiently small, then perhaps the tables are turned
> > > and belief in purely naturalistic origins itself becomes an "argument from
> > > credulity", or, "probabilistically irrational incredulity" at supernatural
> > > intervention (aka ontological naturalism).
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > probability: 4. The relative possibility that an event will
> > occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of
> > actual occurrences to the total number of possible
> > occurrences.
>
> Frequentist! Heretic! Burn him! Make a bridge out of him!
I don't care if you weigh me in stones or even in
boulders, bring on your ducks. I'm not afraid.
Dunk
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>> >The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
>> >self-replicating molecule,
>>
>> Why do you assume it is chance, rather than due to the laws of
>> chemistry and physics.
>
>Sure the laws chemical bonding etc etc apply, and fairly complex molecules
>can form in accordance with these laws. My assumption that these laws do not
>extend as far as prescribing the formation of seld replicating molecule is
>only an assumption, but it seems a well supported one considering the
>failure of life-in-test tube experiments to produce such a molecule.
Physics and chemistry don't prescribe the sun. Given physics and
chemistry and a lot of additional conditions, star formation becomes
quite probable. The laws of chemical bonding don't prescribe the
existence of complex molecules. Given chemistry and a lot of
additional conditions, formation of complex molecules becomes quite
probable. (Complex molecules do not form inside the sun, on the other
hand).
>After 50 years of abiogenesis experiments we have Miller's amino acids and
>Fox's microspheres...an what else?
This is right in line with your above remark about the alleged
>failure of life-in-test tube experiments to produce such a molecule.
Where do you get your ideas on this subject?
(That's a rhetorical question; you evidently get this 'information'
from the usual suspects. Haven't you noticed that they are
consistently misleading? )
>> If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
>> rolling and chemistry.
You've heard of Sisyphus?
>Biology and chemistry are not exempt from mathematics, not even from the
>laws of probability.
Biology and chemistry are not exempt from gravity. The point of many
of the replies here is that you keep talking vaguely about probability
while making no attempt to show _relevance_.
>> >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that
>the
>> >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
>>
>> By what measure? Cell types? Gut wins, Sub structures? gut still wins.
>> Number of neurotransmiters? The enteric nervous system (in the gut)
>> wins, Synapses per neurone (close call between enteric nervous system
>> and brain)? Dendritic arborization per neurone (no idea)? Total number
>> of synaptic connections[1] Compared to what? Rats? Chimps? Whales
>> (whales win in the total number of synaptic connections)?
>>
>> [1] It is widely stated there is more connections in the brain then
>> there are stars in the galaxy/universe. However, this is not the same
>> thing as saying the human brain is the most complex thing in the
>> universe.
>
>Rather struggle with definitions here (and they do take some struggling), I
>leave it the reader to make their own judgement on this. If anyone knows of
>soemthing more complex, please call me at once.
Read Ian's post again.
Dunk
Richard Harter
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Sure the laws chemical bonding etc etc apply, and fairly complex molecules
>can form in accordance with these laws. My assumption that these laws do not
>extend as far as prescribing the formation of seld replicating molecule is
>only an assumption, but it seems a well supported one considering the
>failure of life-in-test tube experiments to produce such a molecule.
There are several such molecules known.
>
>After 50 years of abiogenesis experiments we have Miller's amino acids and
>Fox's microspheres...an what else?
Rather more than I can keep up with, alas. If you really want to know
(something I do not see as being in evidence) then I could cobble
together a thousand or so abstracts or you could rather more easily go
to medline yourself.
Derek Stevenson
news:88y_7.1860$ko4.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
wrote in
> message news:=ng6PA6JCacjGq8Ku=QO4f+...@4ax.com...
The human body, a system consisting of the aforementioned human brain
and a great many additional components.
The body of a near-term pregnant woman, a system consisting of *two*
of the aforementioned human brains and a great many additional
components.
The body of a near-term woman pregnant with twins, a system consisting
of *three* of the aforementioned human brains and a great many
additional components.
(Repeat as required for whatever level of multiple pregnancy you
like.)
Any human group, a system consisting of multiple interacting human
brains and a great many additional components.
The human population as a whole.
The biosphere as a whole.
The solar system as a whole.
Need I go on?
Floyd
<3C3739D6...@jps.net>...
> Oh, I can't resist joining in on this one...
>
> Mark & Roslyn Elkington wrote:
>
> > I'm buggered. It's all too hard; there is no end to this obsessive
> > reading, thinking, posting, arguing, stoushing, learning, reading,
> > thinking... But as my high school motto reminded us, Per Ardua Ad
> > Altiora (through struggles to the heights).
> >
>
> what is "stoushing" ?
Stoush: noun (Austr) Fight, brawl, violence.
HTH HAND
-Floyd
John Wilkins
Surely this has an East London origin. Most of our synonyms for violence
come either from there or Glasgow ;-)
We Aussies are a peaceful folk, on days with a u in them.
David Jensen
john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote in
<1f5qmts.1ya2h73ivv7u9N%john.w...@bigpond.com>:
Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday have different spellings in the
Antipodes, eh?
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 8 Jan 2002 10:32:46 -0500, pdu...@magicnet.net (Dunk) wrote:
[snip]
>>> If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
>>> rolling and chemistry.
>
>You've heard of Sisyphus?
Yes, he works on the floor above me :-)
Seriously though, sometimes I think of feeding the IDer's to the
Bayesians, but even they don't desrve that (well, maybe they do :-)
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 8 Jan 2002 03:33:05 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
BTW, have you had a chance to read Message-ID:
<3c3cc4fc...@news.mira.net> or
<jCg5PKzJ9YuKCh...@4ax.com>
Which contain substatial reponses to the ID thread?
>Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote in
>message news:=ng6PA6JCacjGq8Ku=QO4f+...@4ax.com...
>> G'Day All
>> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>>
>> On 5 Jan 2002 06:19:21 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
>> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
[snip]
>> >The alpha and the omega -- Hydrogen and Homo sapiens*? And what in between?
Quite often, Nutella
>> >The laws of physics and chemistry, the chance formation of a
>> >self-replicating molecule,
>>
>> Why do you assume it is chance, rather than due to the laws of
>> chemistry and physics.
>
>Sure the laws chemical bonding etc etc apply, and fairly complex molecules
>can form in accordance with these laws. My assumption that these laws do not
>extend as far as prescribing the formation of seld replicating molecule is
>only an assumption, but it seems a well supported one considering the
>failure of life-in-test tube experiments to produce such a molecule.
Given that we have made many self-replicating molecues in the
laboratory, your basic assumption is wrong. Some of these are very
unlikely to have anything to do with the origin of life (like the one
that works in chloroform), but they illustrate the principles of
replication, even mutation, are not restricted to Life As We Know It,
and is a general property of templating chemicals.
>After 50 years of abiogenesis experiments we have Miller's amino acids and
>Fox's microspheres...an what else?
Sugars, vitamins, co-factors, adenine, thyamine, cytosine, uracil and
a host of related compounds, ATP, other high energy phosphates, high
energy sulfur compounds, peptides, nucleotide oligomers, lipids, lipid
vesicles, RNA ribozymes, ribozymal RNA polymerases.
A list of some of the more relevnt findings (excluding the ribozymal
RNA polymerase, I haven't put in the the database yet)
Hunding A, and Engelhardt R. (2000 Oct). Self-organization and
evolution in a simulated cross catalyzed network Orig Life Evol Biosph
, 30, 439-57.
Luther A, Brandsch R, and von Kiedrowski G. (1998 Nov 19).
Surface-promoted replication and exponential amplification of DNA
analogues. Nature , 396, 245-8.
Smith JV. (1998 Mar 31). Biochemical evolution. I. Polymerization On
internal, organophilic silica surfaces of dealuminated zeolites and
feldspars [In Process Citation] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 95,
3370-5.
Yao S, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, and Chmielewski J. (1998 Dec 3). Selective
amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide
system. Nature , 396, 447-50.
Wiegand TW, Janssen RC, and Eaton BE. (1997 Sep). Selection of RNA
amide synthases. Chem Biol , 4, 675-83.
Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. (1996 Aug
8). A self-replicating peptide. Nature , 382, 525-8.
Sievers D, and von Kiedrowski G. (1994 May 19). Self-replication of
complementary nucleotide-based oligomers [see comments] Nature , 369,
221-4.
Breaker RR, and Joyce GF. (1994 Jun 21). Emergence of a replicating
species from an in vitro RNA evolution reaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
S A , 91, 6093-7.
Stadler PF. (1991). Dynamics of autocatalytic reaction networks. IV:
Inhomogeneous replicator networks. Biosystems , 26, 1-19.
Miller SL. (1987). Which organic compounds could have occurred on the
prebiotic earth? Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol , 52, 17-27.
Eigen M, and Schuster P. (1977 Nov). The hypercycle. A principle of
natural self-organization. Part A: Emergence of the hypercycle.
Naturwissenschaften , 64, 541-65.
>> >and countless iterations of copy-with variation,
>> >filtered by differential reproductive success?
>> [snip]
>> >Is the formation of a living thing (self-replicating, metabolising ,etc)
>in
>> >this category, i.e. of probability zero? We can never prove that it is
>(i.e.
>> >we can't prove a negative), though we could prove the inverse, by
>producing
>> >such a thing in the lab under simulated natural conditions.
>> >
>> >Let's grant for a moment that it has a non-zero probability. I claim that
>> >abiogenesis is still impossible, given the odds against and the time
>> >available.
>>
>> If you don't know it's probability, how can you possibly say the odds
>> against are too high? What if Kauffman is correct, and the probability
>> is close to 1 (for earth like worlds with liquid water)
>
>"Let's grant for a moment" = "for argument's sake" = let's explore a
>principle by assuming something and seeing where it leads.
You are granting that it has a non-zero probability, why are yoy
claiming the odds are too high when you have no idea of the actual
probability?
[snip]
>> >A dependence on probability is perhaps unavoidable when it comes to attempts
>> >at proof or demonstration of the impossibility of naturalistic formation of
>> >life and evidence of design. In fact, IDers explicitly ask the question,
>> >"Are Probabilities Indispensable to the Design Inference?"
>> >http://iscid.org/papers/Koons_AreProbabilities_112701.pdf
>>
>> If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
>> rolling and chemistry.
>
>Biology and chemistry are not exempt from mathematics, not even from the
>laws of probability.
Mark, I'd like you to meet Dr. Bayes, he has an inference you might
like to consider.
>> >* Based not only on obvious bias, but on the widely held assessment that the
>> >human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
>>
>> By what measure? Cell types? Gut wins, Sub structures? gut still wins.
>> Number of neurotransmiters? The enteric nervous system (in the gut)
>> wins, Synapses per neurone (close call between enteric nervous system
>> and brain)? Dendritic arborization per neurone (no idea)? Total number
>> of synaptic connections[1] Compared to what? Rats? Chimps? Whales
>> (whales win in the total number of synaptic connections)?
>>
>> [1] It is widely stated there is more connections in the brain then
>> there are stars in the galaxy/universe. However, this is not the same
>> thing as saying the human brain is the most complex thing in the
>> universe.
>
>Rather struggle with definitions here (and they do take some struggling), I
>leave it the reader to make their own judgement on this. If anyone knows of
>something more complex, please call me at once.
The gut.
John Wilkins
> G'Day All
> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
> On 8 Jan 2002 10:32:46 -0500, pdu...@magicnet.net (Dunk) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >>> If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
> >>> rolling and chemistry.
> >
> >You've heard of Sisyphus?
>
> Yes, he works on the floor above me :-)
Oh. You tidy up after him, then?
>
> Seriously though, sometimes I think of feeding the IDer's to the
> Bayesians, but even they don't desrve that (well, maybe they do :-)
I think we should employ some theoretical statisticians for a year or
two to "investigate" ID. It would then retreat to a relict population
for another few decades.
John Wilkins
Not at all. We only fight Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays (it leaves
time for the footy and the beer). Brits and Yanks, OTOH, are a bellicose
lot. They are only peacable on days with an x in them.
Bobby D. Bryant
> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Jan 2002 18:27:27 -0500, in talk.origins
>> john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote in
>> <1f5qmts.1ya2h73ivv7u9N%john.w...@bigpond.com>:
>> >
>> >Surely this has an East London origin. Most of our synonyms for
>> >violence come either from there or Glasgow ;-)
>> >
>> >We Aussies are a peaceful folk, on days with a u in them.
>>
>> Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday have different spellings in
>> the Antipodes, eh?
>
> Not at all. We only fight Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays (it leaves
> time for the footy and the beer). Brits and Yanks, OTOH, are a
> bellicose lot. They are only peacable on days with an x in them.
And in Texas, gunfights are considered peacable so long as none of the
weapons are truck mounted or belt-fed.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:a1h29h$eon$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Always and bigger and better :-)
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
Gentle readers, Ian's reply here is perhaps an example of a cite-screen.
Ian knows his subject, and I appreciate and try to follow up links and refs
where possible, though I don't have convenient access to uni library.
However on this occassion I'll trump these with a t.o page on this subject.
This author at least acknowledges that abio is still closer to the
speculation rather than solution end of the scale:
"The problem of perception: Stanley Miller did such awe-inspiring
experiments that we are stuck in a particular abiogenetic paradigm: life
must have come from amino acids synthesized in the atmosphere and dissolved
in a giant pond. This is still roughly the public's perception. However, the
community has moved beyond this, albeit slowly. While my meanderings are not
the only possible description, I hope that they provide a coherent pathway
for those who have not previously considered the challenge in detail.
Obviously, there are still great problems: the synthesis of nucleosides, the
breakdown of oligomers (not considered here), the synthesis of pyrimidines
(not considered, and to some extent not necessary: purines can
self-replicate via non-Watson-Crick base pairs). However, other stumbling
blocks (the synthesis of ribose, the selection from random strings) have
begun to fall."
"Perhaps this more or less even-handed treatment of abiogenesis will give
comfort to creationists or to those who see intelligent design, but I warn
them: to trumpet the barrier today is to eat your words when it falls
tomorrow. If you make a proof of Jesus (or Buddha or any supernaturalism) on
the back of abiogenesis, be prepared for the disproof as well. Such a
disproof is unfair, and not necessarily logically linked, but it will be so
perceived."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
More bluntly:
"...Evolutionists are convinced that abiogenesis happened, but science has
been frustrated it its attempt to account for this process. This statement
from Harold P. Klien, who was the chairman of a National Academy of Sciences
committee reviewing origins of life research, captures the frustration, "The
simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a
chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it [abiogenesis]
happened. Even if scientists do create something with lifelike properties in
the laboratory, they must still wonder: Is that how it happened in the first
place? " (120, 125). Further research and discovery in this area has only
served to complicate things. As the sciences of biochemistry and genetics
develop, the problem of abiogenesis has become that much more intractable.
In July of 1999 the international conference of origin-of-life scientists
met in San Diego, CA. The mood observed by two of the participants was
described as "Grim, full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation" (Fazale
and Ross). One of the foremost experts in this area is the highly respected
biochemist Klause Dose, who summed up the situation this way:
'More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the
fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception
of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than
to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and
experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of
ignorance.' [Dose, Klaus. "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers."
Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 1998]"
http://campus.murraystate.edu/staff/scott.thile/Christian/Design.html
rgds,
Mark
Noelie S. Alito
news:1f5r1pz.qjh1br10ieeclN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
Are you suggesting that we are all indiscriminate fighters?
I never pick a fight with anyone bigger or tougher than my
bodyguards.
Noelie
--
"Smithers, dismember the corpse and send his widow a corsage."
Steve Schaffner
> Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> > G'Day All
> > Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
> >
> > On 8 Jan 2002 10:32:46 -0500, pdu...@magicnet.net (Dunk) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >>> If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
> > >>> rolling and chemistry.
> > >
> > >You've heard of Sisyphus?
> >
> > Yes, he works on the floor above me :-)
>
> Oh. You tidy up after him, then?
> >
> > Seriously though, sometimes I think of feeding the IDer's to the
> > Bayesians, but even they don't desrve that (well, maybe they do :-)
Is it the IDers who don't deserve that, or the Bayesians?
> I think we should employ some theoretical statisticians for a year or
> two to "investigate" ID. It would then retreat to a relict population
> for another few decades.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Dunk
wrote:
Just have to ask. Why are you guys down on the Bayesians?
Dunk
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 9 Jan 2002 03:14:50 -0500, john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins)
wrote:
>Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
>wrote:
>
>> G'Day All
>> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>>
>> On 8 Jan 2002 10:32:46 -0500, pdu...@magicnet.net (Dunk) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >>> If we could just convince IDers that ther is a difference between dice
>> >>> rolling and chemistry.
>> >
>> >You've heard of Sisyphus?
>>
>> Yes, he works on the floor above me :-)
>
>Oh. You tidy up after him, then?
Yeah, but I don't mind. Sisyphus rocks.
>> Seriously though, sometimes I think of feeding the IDer's to the
>> Bayesians, but even they don't deserve that (well, maybe they do :-)
>
>I think we should employ some theoretical statisticians for a year or
>two to "investigate" ID. It would then retreat to a relict population
>for another few decades.
Boy, are you mean or what?
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 9 Jan 2002 07:11:30 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
[snip list of references supporting the statements I made.]
>Gentle readers, Ian's reply here is perhaps an example of a cite-screen.
>Ian knows his subject, and I appreciate and try to follow up links and refs
>where possible, though I don't have convenient access to uni library.
You wanted to know what progress has been made recently. None of this
is present in a web-based format (except some of the Ghadiri groups
work, and that isn't very helpful to the interested reader), so you
are stuck with academic journals. You would rather I say "yes there's
lots" and not provide supporting evidence?
>However on this occassion I'll trump these with a t.o page on this subject.
>This author at least acknowledges that abio is still closer to the
>speculation rather than solution end of the scale:
Why you feel a 1995 article "trumps" progress made since 1995 is a
mystery to me, but:
No, it doesn't actually do that. It correctly shows that while we have
made some substantial progress in trying to understand the origin of
life, and come far from sheer speculation, we still have a long way to
go (and indeed may never have a definitive solution). Who has claimed
otherwise? Heck, we still don't understand Ball lightning after
studying it for a similar number of years, and that's simple.
You have erroneously claimed there are no self-replicating molecules
as part of your probabilistic musing, and I've provided references to
those that exist. You wanted to know what has happened since the
Miller-Urey experiment, and I've given you a brief run down of the
major findings. You will note that most of my references also post
date this article (mid 1995), lots of things have happened since then.
No one, least of all myself, was claiming that this evidence "proves"
abiogenesis, or that the problem is essentially solved, but it does
make your "probability" musing irrelevant.
>"The problem of perception: Stanley Miller did such awe-inspiring
>experiments that we are stuck in a particular abiogenetic paradigm: life
>must have come from amino acids synthesized in the atmosphere and dissolved
>in a giant pond. This is still roughly the public's perception. However, the
>community has moved beyond this, albeit slowly.
Specifically, surface based catalysis in several environments,
including hydrothermal vents, and space based delivery of organics
have been treated extensively since this was written.
>While my meanderings are not
>the only possible description, I hope that they provide a coherent pathway
>for those who have not previously considered the challenge in detail.
>Obviously, there are still great problems: the synthesis of nucleosides,
Achieved in one form or another.
Chaput JC, and Switzer C. (2000 Nov). Nonenzymatic oligomerization on
templates containing phosphodiester-linked acyclic glycerol nucleic
acid analogues J Mol Evol , 51, 464-70.
Gao K, and Orgel LE. (2000 Feb). Polyphosphorylation and
non-enzymatic template-directed ligation of oligonucleotides. Orig
Life Evol Biosph , 30, 45-51.
Unrau PJ, and Bartel DP. (1998 Sep 17). RNA-catalysed nucleotide
synthesis [see comments] Nature , 395, 260-3
>the
>breakdown of oligomers (not considered here), the synthesis of pyrimidines
>(not considered, and to some extent not necessary: purines can
>self-replicate via non-Watson-Crick base pairs).
Achieved
Robertson MP, and Miller SL. (1995 Jun 29). An efficient prebiotic
synthesis of cytosine and uracil [published erratum appears in Nature
1995 Sep 21;377(6546):257] Nature , 375, 772-4.
>However, other stumbling
>blocks (the synthesis of ribose, the selection from random strings) have
>begun to fall."
And more still, virtually all the work on self-replicators has
occurred since this page was published. And more work firming up the
evidence for an RNA world of some form also postdates this, as well as
solutions to the chirality question and a host more.
>"Perhaps this more or less even-handed treatment of abiogenesis will give
>comfort to creationists or to those who see intelligent design, but I warn
>them: to trumpet the barrier today is to eat your words when it falls
>tomorrow. If you make a proof of Jesus (or Buddha or any supernaturalism) on
>the back of abiogenesis, be prepared for the disproof as well. Such a
>disproof is unfair, and not necessarily logically linked, but it will be so
>perceived."
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
No one knows how life arose on Earth, but over the past few decades,
especially over the last 5-6 years, we have made enormous progress in
understanding the possible mechanisms and pathways that could be
involved. We have good evidence that the basic chemicals and polymers
needed for life can be made in a variety of prebiotic environments, we
have a moderate array of direct and indirect evidence for an RNA
world. Links between the pre-RNA world, the RNA world and the post RNA
world are more tenuous, and indeed the RNA world may be a complete red
herring, but these things are under active investigation.
Jeffares DC, Poole AM, and Penny D. (1998 Jan). Relics from the RNA
world. J Mol Evol , 46, 18-36.
Poole AM, Jeffares DC, and Penny D. (1998 Jan). The path from the RNA
world. J Mol Evol , 46, 1-17.
You are quite welcome to call this body of experimental and
theoretical work "speculation" if you wish. However, probability
calculations pulled out of thin air, based on unfamiliarity or
ignorance of the science actually done, and without regard to the
actual questions of chemistry, physics and (dare I say it)
self-organization involved, and merely vacuous.
PS, have you had a chance to read Message-ID:
<3c3cc4fc...@news.mira.net> or
<jCg5PKzJ9YuKCh...@4ax.com> which contain substantial
responses to the ID thread yet?
Mark Elkington
> 'More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the
> fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception
> of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than
> to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and
> experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of
> ignorance.' [Dose, Klaus. "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers."
> Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 1998]"
Errata? That reference according to several other sources with the
same quote date it as 1988.
Mark
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
I think it's valid and good for you to provide the citations you have.
However citations alone with relevant-looking titles can give a false
impression of progress:
"He [Behe] then devotes 13 pages to his literature search of 1200 papers in
the
Journal of Molecular Evolution (JME) and other technical sources.
"In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of
its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a
complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual
step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
"He also searched the 20,000 papers published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (1984-1994) [ok, pre-1995, but the trend is
clear]
and found 400 papers that were
concerned with molecular evolution. Examining these 400 papers he found
that "no papers were published in the PNAS that proposed detailed routes
by which complex biochemical structures might have developed.
"Then he searched the indexes of 30 bio-chemistry text books for entries
on evolution. Out of 185,500 index entries, only 138 claimed to deal
with evolution. Typically they were single baseless assertions like,
"Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing conditions on a
geological time scale and continue to do so.""
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i9f.htm
"The fossil evidence fades out at 3.5 billion years ago. The phylogenetic
evidence is for the moment blurred by horizontal gene transfer. The best
efforts of chemists to reconstruct molecules typical of life in the
laboratory have shown only that it is a problem of fiendish difficulty. The
genesis of life on earth, some time in the fiery last days of the Hadean,
remains an unyielding problem."
--Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier; Genetic Analysis Yields
Intimations of a Primordial Commune, Nicholas Wade, The New York Times, June
13, 2000, pp. D1-D2
I didn't call your citations speculation on my own authority. I deferred to
experts in this field, whose quotes you have silently snipped! Hmmm...I must
be getting warm.
I don't routinely argue by appeal to authority, but I think in this context
it is appropriate to bring in some summing up statements from leaders in the
field. It's a good way to get a view the forest.
> PS, have you had a chance to read Message-ID:
> <3c3cc4fc...@news.mira.net> or
> <jCg5PKzJ9YuKCh...@4ax.com> which contain substantial
> responses to the ID thread yet?
No - how do I get to them?
rgds,
Mark
Steve Schaffner
> On 9 Jan 2002 14:39:32 -0500, Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) writes:
> >
> >> Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Seriously though, sometimes I think of feeding the IDer's to the
> >> > Bayesians, but even they don't desrve that (well, maybe they do :-)
> >
> >Is it the IDers who don't deserve that, or the Bayesians?
> Just have to ask. Why are you guys down on the Bayesians?
The only thing worse than a Bayesian is a frequentist.
I'm not down on Bayesians -- I suspect they have a more
coherent view of probability (although I will not defend that
position, or any other position on probability, if challenged).
The only reason one might occasionally poke fun at them is that
some of them sometimes give an impression of religious zeal.
Laurence A. Moran
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A musing
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4iBZ7.1713$ko4.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au> <UqW_7.1932$ko4.2...@nasal.pacific.net.au> <OxI9PJJ7TqWEXk0vGBvNcvZMB1M=@4ax.com> <ZXf%7.1996$ko4.2...@nasal.pacific.net.au>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: The University of Toronto
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <ZXf%7.1996$ko4.2...@nasal.pacific.net.au>,
Mark & Roslyn Elkington <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
[snip]
>I think it's valid and good for you to provide the citations you have.
>However citations alone with relevant-looking titles can give a false
>impression of progress:
>
>"He [Behe] then devotes 13 pages to his literature search of 1200 papers in
>the Journal of Molecular Evolution (JME) and other technical sources.
[snip]
>"Then he searched the indexes of 30 bio-chemistry text books for entries
>on evolution. Out of 185,500 index entries, only 138 claimed to deal
>with evolution. Typically they were single baseless assertions like,
>"Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing conditions on a
>geological time scale and continue to do so.""
>http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i9f.htm
Mark quotes directly from a webpage that refers to Behe's book. I assume
that Mark is trying to make a point about the lack of referencs to
evolution in biochemistry textbooks.
Laurence A. Moran
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A musing
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4iBZ7.1713$ko4.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au> <UqW_7.1932$ko4.2...@nasal.pacific.net.au> <OxI9PJJ7TqWEXk0vGBvNcvZMB1M=@4ax.com> <ZXf%7.1996$ko4.2...@nasal.pacific.net.au>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: The University of Toronto
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <ZXf%7.1996$ko4.2...@nasal.pacific.net.au>,
Mark & Roslyn Elkington <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
[snip]
>I think it's valid and good for you to provide the citations you have.
>However citations alone with relevant-looking titles can give a false
>impression of progress:
>
>"He [Behe] then devotes 13 pages to his literature search of 1200 papers in
>the Journal of Molecular Evolution (JME) and other technical sources.
[snip]
>"Then he searched the indexes of 30 bio-chemistry text books for entries
>on evolution. Out of 185,500 index entries, only 138 claimed to deal
>with evolution. Typically they were single baseless assertions like,
>"Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing conditions on a
>geological time scale and continue to do so.""
>http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i9f.htm
Mark quotes directly from a webpage that refers to Behe's book. I assume
that Mark is trying to make a point about the lack of referencs to
evolution in biochemistry textbooks. He (Mark) then goes on to make the
following statements.
>I didn't call your citations speculation on my own authority. I deferred
>to experts in this field, whose quotes you have silently snipped!
>Hmmm...I must be getting warm.
>
>I don't routinely argue by appeal to authority, but I think in this
>context it is appropriate to bring in some summing up statements from
>leaders in the field. It's a good way to get a view the forest.
Let's assume that, in Mark's eyes, Behe is an "expert in the field." Mark
assumes that biochemistry textbooks don't talk about evolution because
Behe has said so.
This is a subject that interests me a great deal since I am an author
on two of the textbooks that Behe examined (Moran et al. 1994; Horton et
al. 1993). The reference to Behe's comments is ....
Behe, M.J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution, The Free Press, New York, pp. 179-183
Behe says,
"A survey of thirty biochemistry textbooks (summarized in
Table 8-1) used in major universities over the past generation
shows that many textbooks ignore evolution completely."
Is this true? Of course not ... and this should come as no surprise to
those who are familiar with the tactics of the anti-evolutionists.
Behe is deliberately misleading his readers in several different ways.
His first strawman is the implication that biochemistry textbooks are
about evolution - they are not. It is not the purpose of biochemistry
textbooks to describe and explain evolution. Instead, the authors make
the assumption that students have taken biology and are familiar with
the basic concepts of evolution. Biochemists know that nothing in
biology makes sense except in the light of evolution and they
simply assume that intelligent students will understand references to
evolution that are scattered throughout the textbooks. The textbooks do
not ignore evolution, they take it as a fact.
The other major deception employed by Behe is to assume that all
references to evolution in the biochemistry textbooks can be found in
the indices. That's why his table lists the total number of index
entries and those that refer to evolution. This is a really, really
stupid way for Behe to examine the textbooks for examples of evolution.
Let me explain why. The indices usually point to explanations or
definitions of things that are in the body of the textbook. For the most
part, in these books there are few "explanations" of evolution, per se.
There's a good reason for this. It shouldn't come as a surprise that
there are few entries under "evolution" since that's not the subject
matter of biochemistrty. This doesn't mean that biochemistry isn't
discussed in the context of an understanding of evolution, and it
doesn't mean that there are no evolutionary explanations of biochemical
processes. Behe seems to think that the indices in textbook should refer
to every single mention of a particular word yet he knows that's not
true, even in his own book. (Another problem is that textbook indices
are usually compiled by editors hired by the publisher. Typically
they're one of the last things done before publication and that's why
they aren't so good. From my own experience I suspect that most authors
are pretty sick of the book by that stage and don't pay a lot of
attention to the index.)
Behe's next sentence is,
"For example, Thomas Devlin of Jefferson University in
Philadelphia wrote a biochemistry textbook that was first
published by John Wiley & Sons in 1982; new edition followed
in 1986 and 1992. The first edition has about 2,500 entries
in its index; the second edition also has 2,500; and the
third has 3,000. Of these, the number referring to evolution
are zero, zero, and zero, respectively."
Does this mean that Devlin ignores evolution completely? Not bloody
likely. Here's the opening paragraph on page 1 of the 3rd edition
published in 1992.
"By a process not entirely understood and in a time span that
is difficult to comprehend, elements such as carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus combined, dispersed, and
recombined to form a variey of molecules until a combination
was achieved that was capable of replicating itself. With
continued evolution and the formation of ever more complex
molecules, the environment around some of these self-
replicating molecules was enclosed by a membrane. This
development gave these primordial molecules a significant
advantage in that they could control to some extent their own
environment. A form of life had evolved and a unit of space,
the cell, had been established. With the passing of time a
diversity of life evolved, and their chemisty and stuctures
became more complex. Eventually, they were capable of extacting
nutrients from the environment, chemically converting these
nutrients to either sources of energy or to complex molecules,
of controlling chemical process they catalyzed, and of
replicating themselvs into other cells. The challenge of
biochemical research is to unravel the chemical mechanisms
behind the organized and controlled manner in which cells carry
out there function."
Does this sound like someone who ignores evolution? As you might expect
from the opening paragraph, evolution comes up again many times in the
textbook, although it's fair to say that it isn't emphasized.
By the way, Devlin's affiliation is the Dept. of Biological Chemistry,
Hahnemann University, Philadelphia and not Jefferson University as Behe
states in his book. The affiliation is clearly stated on the title page
of the biochemistry textbook, 3rd edition - the one that Behe supposedly
examined so closely. Devlin did not write the textbook. He is clearly
identified on the cover as the editor. There are 28 chapters written by
a total of 27 authors. The authors of each chapter are prominently
identifed in several places in the book. In case anyone is interested,
the latest edition is ...
Devlin, T.M. (editor) (1997) Textbook of Biochemistry with
Clinical Correlations, Wiley-Liss, New York 4th ed.
This is an excellent book for those who want to learn about human
biochemistry and clinical aspects.
Behe continues,
"A textbook by Frank Armstrong of North Carolina State University,
published by Oxford University Press, is the only recent book
to include an historical chapter reviewing important developments
in biochemistry, begining with the synthesis of urea in 1828.
The chapter does not mention Darwin or evolution. In three
editions Armstrong's book has found it unnecessary to mention
evolution in its index."
I have a copy of the 3rd edition (1989) - this is the latest edition in
Behe's list. It's true that there is no index entry under "evolution."
However, there's plenty of references to evolution in the textbook. In
chapter 8, for example, there's a whole section entitled "Biochemical
Evolution." Perhaps Behe should have scanned the Table of Contents and
not the index?
Armstrong doesn't mention Darwin in his introductory historical chapter.
Many biochemistry textbooks don't, although I've inserted a photo of
Chales Darwin in my latest book just to spite Behe. It's not true that
biochemistry textbooks, in general, ignore evolution in their opening
chapters as Behe would have us believe. We saw that Devlin begins his
book with evolution and others point out that an understanding of
evolution is important in understanding biochemistry. One of my earlier
books (Horton et al. 1993) is on Behe's list and in chapter 1 I wrote a
section entitled "All Organisms Have Evolved from an Ancient Ancestor."
I guess Behe missed this when he was collecting his data.
Behe continues to make a fool of himself ...
"Another textbook published by John Wiley & Sons has one citation
to evolution in its index out of a total of 2,500. It refers to
a sentence on page 4: 'Organisms have evolved and adapted to
changing environments on a geological time scale and continue
to do so.' Nothing else is said."
Behe refers to a book by Conn, Stumpf et al. (1987). There is a single
entry under evolution in the index. It refers to page 4 - here's the
entire paragraph.
"The biochemist must be aware of the abilities of organisms
to change and adapt, not only in the time frame of an individual
organism but also on an evolutionary time scale. It is not
enough to consider any noncellular, single cell, or multicellular
organism in isolation as it exists today. Organisms can be
classified as belonging to species or similar taxonomic or
functional groupings. Organisms exchange, or at least transmit,
symbolically encoded, controlling information. That is, they have
genetic systems. Capabilities of the progeny reflect the
capabilities of the parent(s), and the progeny follow definite
plans of development. Those plans, though definite, are not rigid.
They are modified by the environment and time. Organisms cannot
be understood without a consideration of what their antecedents
must have been like. *Organisms have evolved and adapted to
changing environments on a geological time scale and continue
to do so.* Thus, biochemists seek chemical explanations of how
organisms adapt to their environment both in the short term and
over eons."
One might expect there to be more about evolution in such a textbook and
you wouldn't be disappointed. Chapter 3 discusses phylogenetic trees
based on amino acid sequences, chapter 11 introduces the pentose
phosphate pathway in the context of an evolved system, and chapter 15
presents the evolution of photosynthesis. These are just a few of the
many examples that Behe must have missed when he read this textbook.
Behe goes on ...
"Some textbooks make a concerted effort to inculcate in students
an evolutionary view of the world ...."
This is correct. What's the probelm? Isn't it an important part of
education to teach the correct scientific view of the world?
Behe concludes with ...
"Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world
through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how
Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably
intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe."
It's true that the biochemistry textbooks do not contain complete
descriptions of all of the evolutionary pathways that lead to intricate
biochemical systems. In most cases we don't know the exact evolutionary
pathway. Even if we did we wouldn't put them all in a biochemistry
textbook because the texts are about biochemistry and not about
evolution. What textbook authors do is point to examples of biochemical
evolution and explain how some of the data is acquired (e.g. amino acid
and nucleotide sequences). Furthermore, most of us wouldn't emphasize
"Darwinian evolution" since that's an outmoded concept - especially at
the molecular level. We talk about the modern version of evolution in
recent textbooks.
In conclusion, Behe is way off base with his criticisms of biochemistry
textbooks. He seems to have gone out of his way to set up and knock down
a strawman version of the importance of evolution in biochemistry
textbooks. In addition, he deliberately chooses to select index entries
as his criterion when he should know that this gives a totally false
impression of what's actually in a book. All in all, this is a very poor
example of scholarship. I think Mark should choose better authorities.
Larry Moran
Mark Elkington
"The chemistry of the first life is a nightmare to explain. No one has
yet devised a plausible explanation to show how the earliest chemicals
of life -- thought to be RNA, or ribonucleic acid, a close relative of
DNA -- might have constructed themselves from the inorganic chemicals
likely to have been around on the early earth. The spontaneous
assembly of small RNA molecules on the primitive earth 'would have
been a near miracle,' two experts in the subject helpfully declared
last year."
Chris Ho-Stuart
beyond what is needed; and I nearly missed the actual content
because I had to skip forward so far to find it. The inclusion
of some extra Usenet headers near the end of the quoted
section suggests to me Larry might have intended a snip, but
that it didn't work out as intended.
I am nominating the following post by Larry; but if it is
accepted I would like that initial portion removed.
This post looks at some of Behe's claims about what appears
in scientific text books. It demonstrates that Behe is not
merely foolish: he is culpably dishonest to an extent that I
had not previously realised.
In any case, I think this post could also be reworked fairly
easily into an FAQ that would go well in the Behe section of
the talkorigins archive.
The remainder of this post (by me) consists the nominated
post, but with a large snip of initial quoted material that
was not needed for context.
Cheers -- Chris
Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
[snip by CHS]
Laurence A. Moran
I'm having a dumber day than usual.
[snip]
[snip]
>http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i9f.htm
Behe says,
Behe continues,
Behe goes on ...
This is correct. What's the problem? Isn't it an important part of
Floyd
<1f5r1pz.qjh1br10ieeclN%john.w...@bigpond.com>...
Oh come now, we're nowhere _near_ as restrictive as all that. We just
drink beer and watch the game _while_ fighting. Multi-tasking, you see.
In fact, most of the good fights involve some combination of sports and
beer. That's Yank efficiency for you!
-Floyd
Chris Ho-Stuart
> I'm having a dumber day than usual.
I had noticed... but you *still* managed to be worth a POTM
nomination!
OK... I retract my previous nomination and instead nominate
this even less dumb version....
So for, the message id for the nominated post is:
<a1l0gu$15eu$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>
Cheers -- Chris
Wade Hines
Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
>
> Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > This is my third attempt to post this. Please accept my apologies ...
> > I'm having a dumber day than usual.
>
> I had noticed... but you *still* managed to be worth a POTM
> nomination!
>
> OK... I retract my previous nomination and instead nominate
> this even less dumb version....
2nd'd
Noelie S. Alito
Seconded: A classic blow-by-blow refutation from one of
the principals involved.
Noelie
--
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough
that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment.
You must also be right."
--Robert Park, American Physical Society
John Wilkins
> "Chris Ho-Stuart" <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3c3e...@news.qut.edu.au...
> > Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > > This is my third attempt to post this. Please accept my apologies ...
> > > I'm having a dumber day than usual.
> >
> > I had noticed... but you *still* managed to be worth a POTM
> > nomination!
> >
> > OK... I retract my previous nomination and instead nominate
> > this even less dumb version....
> >
> > So for, the message id for the nominated post is:
> > <a1l0gu$15eu$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>
>
>
> Seconded: A classic blow-by-blow refutation from one of
> the principals involved.
>
3rd/4thd, but I think this is the basis of a really nice FAQ on Behe's
misuse of authorities. Didn't Ian do something once on how easy it was
to find references to origins of life scenarios that Behe "missed"?
Could they be combined?
newbie
Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:a1ktl0$13q1$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
big snip
In a word, Mr. Moran, yes.
>As you might expect
> from the opening paragraph, evolution comes up again many times in the
> textbook, although it's fair to say that it isn't emphasized.
Abiogenesis can not be referred to as "a process"; as the process, if a process
occured, is unknown. The above paragraph is speculation.
In addition, life has not been defined as self replicating molecules, either
enclosed by a membrane or not.
As you might expect, after reading this I would not *expect* that the textbook
discusses evolution, but may expect use of the word as it is used in the above
paragraph, which is not a proper use of the definition of evolution or any part
of evolutionary theory.
If biochemistry wishes to "unravel the chemical mechanisms behind the organized
and controlled manner in which cells carry out there function." it has plenty of
subjects to study that are alive today, and there is no need to speculate about
abiogenesis. Cells are carrying out their functions right under your nose!
big snip
Dunk
So they are! It is AMAZING to think that Larry didn't know that.
When he gets over his surprise, I'm sure he will thank you for giving
him a clue.
Dunk
Dunk
wrote:
>Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
I think this is a good suggestion, because:
Time after time, evolution opponents are not just a little bit wrong,
they build entire scenarios that are entirely wrong and misleading to
a far greater extent than the average citizen would ever suspect
anyone would be in a published book.
People take it for granted that even if some detail may be wrong, the
author isnt building a whole fictional world that is designedly unlike
the real one. But it happens time after time. This is not an
isolated example.
Larry is really too generous ( I think he would agree; if not, I'll
here about it :) in concluding that this is poor scholarship on
Behe's part. Behe is a biochemistry prof at Lehigh University.
Behe surely must know what is in biochemistry textbooks. He is not
some innocent layman who would have no better way to find out if
evolution is discussed than to look in the index, due to being unable
to read the text itself. But looking in the index will seem to make
sense to the people he hopes to convince.
<end rant>
Dunk
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 10 Jan 2002 07:40:36 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote in
>message news:OxI9PJJ7TqWEXk0vGBvNcvZMB1M=@4ax.com...
[snip many comments]
>> You are quite welcome to call this body of experimental and
>> theoretical work "speculation" if you wish. However, probability
>> calculations pulled out of thin air, based on unfamiliarity or
>> ignorance of the science actually done, and without regard to the
>> actual questions of chemistry, physics and (dare I say it)
>> self-organization involved, and merely vacuous.
>
>I think it's valid and good for you to provide the citations you have.
>However citations alone with relevant-looking titles can give a false
>impression of progress:
>
>"He [Behe] then devotes 13 pages to his literature search of 1200 papers in
>the Journal of Molecular Evolution (JME) and other technical sources.
And Behe's inability to do a journal search has precisely what to do
with progress in abiogenesis?
>"In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of
>its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a
>complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual
>step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
Couldn't have looked very hard, these are papers on complex _systems_
in JME prior to 1995.
Ryden LG, Hunt LT. Evolution of protein complexity: the blue
copper-containing oxidases and related proteins. J Mol Evol. 1993
Jan;36(1):41-66.
Reizer A, Pao GM, Saier MH Jr. Evolutionary relationships among the
permease proteins of the bacterial phosphoenolpyruvate: sugar
phosphotransferase system. Construction of phylogenetic trees and
possible relatedness to proteins of eukaryotic mitochondria. Mol Evol.
1991 Aug;33(2):179-93.
Mage RG, McCartney-Francis NL, Komatsu M, Lamoyi E. Evolution of genes
for allelic and isotypic forms of immunoglobulin kappa chains and of
the genes for T-cell receptor beta chains in rabbits. J Mol Evol.
1987;25(4):292-9.
>"He also searched the 20,000 papers published in the Proceedings of the
>National Academy of Sciences (1984-1994) [ok, pre-1995, but the trend is
>clear]
He obviously missed
Bazan JF. Structural design and molecular evolution of a cytokine
receptor superfamily. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990Sep;87(18):6934-8.
Wothe DD, Charbonneau H, Shapiro BM.The phosphocreatine shuttle of sea
urchin sperm: flagellar creatine kinase resulted from a gene
triplication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Jul;87(13):5203-7.
Stock A, Koshland DE Jr, Stock J. Homologies between the Salmonella
typhimurium CheY protein and proteins involved in the regulation of
chemotaxis, membrane protein synthesis, and sporulation. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Dec;82(23):7989-93.
Obata Y, Satta Y, Moriwaki K, Shiroishi T, Hasegawa H, Takahashi T,
Takahata N. Structure, function, and evolution of mouse TL genes,
nonclassical class I genes of the major histocompatibility complex.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jul 5;91(14):6589-93.
Amy CM, Williams-Ahlf B, Naggert J, Smith S. Intron-exon organization
of the gene for the multifunctional animal fatty acid synthase. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Feb 1;89(3):1105-8.
>and found 400 papers that were
>concerned with molecular evolution. Examining these 400 papers he found
>that "no papers were published in the PNAS that proposed detailed routes
>by which complex biochemical structures might have developed.
Behe shows himself to be either a fool or a charlatan. In fact there
are many papers pre-1995 that show detailed discussions of molecular
evolution of complex biochemical systems. These include evolution of
the trypsin family enzymes, the citric acid cycle, glycolysis.
<sarcasm>Most of these aren't in PNAS, but in trivial journals like
Nature or Science so it's not surprising he missed them.</sarcasm>
Some of the basic work goes back to the 70's. Detailed work on the
citric acid cycle dates from the 1980's (Baldwin JE, Krebs H (1981)
The evolution of metabolic cycles. Nature 291:381–382).
For more see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe1.html#BigPicture (scroll down until
you see "He understates..")
>"Then he searched the indexes of 30 bio-hemistry text books for entries
>on evolution. Out of 185,500 index entries, only 138 claimed to deal
>with evolution. Typically they were single baseless assertions like,
>"Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing conditions on a
>geological time scale and continue to do so.""
>http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i9f.htm
Larry Moran has already shown this claim to be false in a separate
reply, once again, Behe is either a fool or a charlatan (didn't he
think anyone would _check_!)
>"The fossil evidence fades out at 3.5 billion years ago. The phylogenetic
>evidence is for the moment blurred by horizontal gene transfer. The best
>efforts of chemists to reconstruct molecules typical of life in the
>laboratory have shown only that it is a problem of fiendish difficulty. The
>genesis of life on earth, some time in the fiery last days of the Hadean,
>remains an unyielding problem."
>--Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier; Genetic Analysis Yields
>Intimations of a Primordial Commune, Nicholas Wade, The New York Times, June
>13, 2000, pp. D1-D2
New York times, now THERE'S a peer-reviewed journal unlikely to
overstate a case for rhetorical effect. Mark, science gets done by
scientists and gets reported in the pages of science journals. Sadly,
you will NOT get a feel for progress in any scientific field from
newspapers, even ones as august as the New York Times (seen any good
cancer breakthroughs reported recently?). Of course the origin of life
is a fiendishly difficult problem, for many reasons, yet we can (and
have) still make(made) substantial progress in these problems. Compare
this with progress in cancer (a problem of smaller dimensions with
vastly more resources invested in it) and understanding ball lightning
(a vastly simpler problem).
>I didn't call your citations speculation on my own authority. I deferred to
>experts in this field, whose quotes you have silently snipped! Hmmm...I must
>be getting warm.
Experts! please don't make me laugh. Possibly (probably, I can find
the citations to these statements) out of context quotes from marginal
figures (Klien has never published in the field and Dose hasn't
published in abiogenesis in 15 years, and hasn't done original work
for longer) from a Christian apologetic site. Where were the
statements from the _real_ experts in the field, the ones actually
doing the work who are supposed to be dispirited? Orgel, Miller,
Deamer, Ferris, Unrau, Ghadiri? And I'd trust a quote from OEC Hugh
Ross on "dejection" at an abiogenesis conference as far as I could
throw it.
>I don't routinely argue by appeal to authority, but I think in this context
>it is appropriate to bring in some summing up statements from leaders in the
>field. It's a good way to get a view the forest.
Neither of those people are "leaders in the field", nor is OEC Hugh
Ross an unbiased observer. Mark, you have to get better sources, this
stuff is just junk. I'll say it again, real science is done by
scientists, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Second hand
quotes of dubious provenance from marginal figures published in
non-reviewed forums is no match for actually reading what is going on
in the real world of science.
Look, I may be sounding very harsh, and I know you are honestly trying
to understand all of this, but your understanding is only as good as
the trustworthiness of your sources. The web is a marvelous tool for
those without access to libraries, but you have to realize that 95% of
it is rubbish, and you require very careful reading to find the gold
from the dross. In the case of the above quotes, you've managed to
mine pure dross.
>> PS, have you had a chance to read Message-ID:
>> <3c3cc4fc...@news.mira.net> or
>> <jCg5PKzJ9YuKCh...@4ax.com> which contain substantial
>> responses to the ID thread yet?
>
>No - how do I get to them?
In FreeAgent, Agent or similar news readers, just click on them. If
you can't do this, go to www.google.com and do an advanced search on
message ID (or just follow the ID + Superego threads in google).
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 10 Jan 2002 17:18:43 -0500, "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com>
wrote:
>"Chris Ho-Stuart" <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:3c3e...@news.qut.edu.au...
>> Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> > This is my third attempt to post this. Please accept my apologies ...
>> > I'm having a dumber day than usual.
>>
>> I had noticed... but you *still* managed to be worth a POTM
>> nomination!
>>
>> OK... I retract my previous nomination and instead nominate
>> this even less dumb version....
>>
>> So for, the message id for the nominated post is:
>> <a1l0gu$15eu$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>
>
>
>Seconded: A classic blow-by-blow refutation from one of
>the principals involved.
Thirded!
Cheers! Ian (especially as Behe misused one of your books).
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 10 Jan 2002 15:56:51 -0500, mar...@zeta.org.au (Mark Elkington)
wrote:
>PS
>
>"The chemistry of the first life is a nightmare to explain. No one has
>yet devised a plausible explanation to show how the earliest chemicals
>of life -- thought to be RNA, or ribonucleic acid, a close relative of
>DNA -- might have constructed themselves from the inorganic chemicals
>likely to have been around on the early earth. The spontaneous
>assembly of small RNA molecules on the primitive earth 'would have
>been a near miracle,' two experts in the subject helpfully declared
>last year."
Oh joy, two anonymous "experts" now. Ones who seem rather unfamiliar
with the state of the field (or Peptide Nuccleic Acid folks pushing
PNA as an RNA precursor, you never know).
>--Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier; Genetic Analysis Yields
>Intimations of a Primordial Commune, Nicholas Wade, The New York
>Times, June
>13, 2000, pp. D1-D2
compare this to:
Orig Life Evol Biosph 2001 Feb-Apr;31(1-2):87-102 Prebiotic synthesis
of nucleotides. Zubay G, Mui T.
"...Progress made in the last few years has added to this early work
and brings us closer to a satisfactory solution. In this article key
results, old and new, and some ideas as to how further progress is
likely to be made are discussed. There are reasons for optimism.
Substantial progress has been made on the synthesis of purines and
ribose, phosphorylation and polyphosphorylation. ..."
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
....
> >I don't routinely argue by appeal to authority, but I think in this
context
> >it is appropriate to bring in some summing up statements from leaders in
the
> >field. It's a good way to get a view the forest.
>
> Neither of those people are "leaders in the field", nor is OEC Hugh
> Ross an unbiased observer. Mark, you have to get better sources, this
> stuff is just junk. I'll say it again, real science is done by
> scientists, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Second hand
> quotes of dubious provenance from marginal figures published in
> non-reviewed forums is no match for actually reading what is going on
> in the real world of science.
>
> Look, I may be sounding very harsh, and I know you are honestly trying
> to understand all of this, but your understanding is only as good as
> the trustworthiness of your sources. The web is a marvelous tool for
> those without access to libraries, but you have to realize that 95% of
> it is rubbish, and you require very careful reading to find the gold
> from the dross. In the case of the above quotes, you've managed to
> mine pure dross.
I think "pure dross" is rather overstating it. I do acknowledge your point
and concede there are shortcomings to web & local library resources only.
Masochistically at times, I value the input from knowledgeable posters here,
despite our often sharp disagreement. Bad scholarship ultimately serves
no-one.
One thing which to me is interesting. Whatever the precise status of abio
research, a generally accepted theory of abiogenesis seems far behind the
generally accepted theory of evolution. Yet the latter accounts for vastly
more than the former, indeed essentially all life. This inversion seems
surprising. I frequently hear the claim here that once the first
self-replicator is found, the rest is easy--just try holding natural
selection back. Just about anything is possible, in fact almost inevitable.
Which is why some people, notably IDers but also various evolutionist
post-Darwinians, are questioning the creative power of the simple
vary-and-select mechanism. We struggle to explain or reproduce the
naturalistic formation of a minimal "free-living" self-replicating molecule,
and yet claim the transformation of such into the constellation of life on
earth fait accompli, using the magic of natural selection.
Finally, another piece of implicit evidence at some real intractibility with
abio theory is the growing interest in astrobiology. Fred Hoyle was perhaps
out on a limb in his time, but it appears to be gaining credibility,
including various forms of panspermia.
More musings; we watch and see.
rgds,
Mark
Mark & Roslyn Elkington
But I have to say Laurence, if your claims are correct (and from the easily
verifiable detail in them this seems rather possible) Behe has perhaps some
explaining to do. For my part upholding competent and honest scholarship
grudgingly wins over team loyalty. I'll reserve final judgement pending a
reply from Behe, which you might get if this makes it into a FAQ.
Regards,
Mark
Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:a1l0gu$15eu$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
Laurence A. Moran
Mark & Roslyn Elkington <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Well, blowed if I'm going to be a POTM seconder here :-)
>
>But I have to say Laurence, if your claims are correct (and from the easily
>verifiable detail in them this seems rather possible) Behe has perhaps some
>explaining to do. For my part upholding competent and honest scholarship
>grudgingly wins over team loyalty. I'll reserve final judgement pending a
>reply from Behe, which you might get if this makes it into a FAQ.
Behe hasn't responded to these criticisms in the past so I doubt that
he'll do so now.
What we're dealing with here is a fundamental difference in the way
Behe and textbook writers view evolution. The authors of biochemistry
textbooks accept evolution as a fact and they use evolution as a way
of *explaining* a lot of biochemistry. In other words, they focus on
the principle that evolution helps us to understand much of biochemistry
and not on the principle that biochemistry has to prove evolution.
The demonstration of the evidence for evolution is left to introductory
biology textbooks and high school science courses.
Behe, on the other hand, does not accept evolution as a fact. Consequently,
evolution can't be an "explanation" for anything in biochemistry until
it's "proven." Behe is looking for *evidence* of evolution in the
biochemistry textbooks - he expects the textbook writers to prove to him
that evolution occurs. But biochemists aren't interested in finding more
evidence for evolution - this hasn't been an issue in biochemistry for
over 50 years. Evolution is so widely accepted and demonstrated that
it's pointless to waste any time describing additional "evidence" to
convince the few remaining hard-core anti-evolutionists.
So, when we say that evolution helps us to understand why humans can't
make vitamin C and some amino acids, we are using the fact of evolution
to illuminate what at first sight seems to be a puzzle. Behe doesn't
accept this as an explanation and demands that textbook writers show him
how the lack of a vitamin C in humans "proves" that evolution
happened. Do you see the diffence between what Behe is demanding and
what the authors are delivering?
I blame Behe for not making this clear to his readers. He implies that
the biochemistry textbooks are deficient because they don't prove to him
that evolution is important. That's not what biochemistry textbooks
are trying to do. Evolution is a fact and because it is a fact it
provides powerful explanations of many phenomena in biochemistry.
There's another deceit propagated by Behe. He demands that the
biochemistry textbooks explain the origins of molecular machinery. On
pages 180-181 of "Darwin's Black Box" he describes the early editions
of a textbook written by Albert Lehinger. He says,
"The extra references to evolution in the newest edition of the
Lehninger text can all be fit into three categories: sequence
similarities, comments on the ancestories of cells, and pious
but unsupported attributions of a feature to evolution. But none
of these, even in principle, can tell us how molecular machinery
arose step by step. In no instance is a detailed route given
by which any complex biochemical system might have arisen in a
Darwinian manner."
There's two good reasons why such detailed step-by-step pathways aren't
in the biochemistry textbooks. Firstly, in most cases we don't know
these historical pathways of evolution. Most of biochemistry deals with
fundamental reactions inside cells and we may never know exactly how
they arose in enough detail, and with enough supporting evidence, to put
them in a textbook. Secondly, even if we did know how complex
biochemical systems arose in a Darwinian manner it's not clear that this
would be described in biochemistry textbooks. It might be described in
textbooks on evolution but not necessarily in textbooks whose main focus
is on structure and function at the molecular level.
I call this attack "deceitful" because Behe should know this. He's
misdirecting his readers by gloating over the absence of a thorough
understanding of all aspects the origins of life. Behe ignores all of
the good examples of why evolution helps us understand biochemistry -
for example, that mitochondria and chloroplasts are derived from
bacteria. Instead, he focuses on the cases where *he* thinks evolution
has to provide a detailed explanation in order to prove to *him* that
evolution is a fact.
Larry Moran
Matt Silberstein
In general I would ban Larry from POTM. There needs to be room for
mortals. However this post goes beyond even his usual standard of
excellence. My only complaint is that it took so long for this bit of
Behevian competence to get exposed.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 11 Jan 2002 07:16:17 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Well, blowed if I'm going to be a POTM seconder here :-)
You can be a thirder, like me :-)
>But I have to say Laurence, if your claims are correct (and from the easily
>verifiable detail in them this seems rather possible) Behe has perhaps some
>explaining to do. For my part upholding competent and honest scholarship
>grudgingly wins over team loyalty.
Grudgingly? why grudgingly?
[snip rest]
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 11 Jan 2002 07:00:09 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote in
>message
[snip]
>> >I don't routinely argue by appeal to authority, but I think in this
>context
>> >it is appropriate to bring in some summing up statements from leaders in the
>> >field. It's a good way to get a view the forest.
>>
>> Neither of those people are "leaders in the field", nor is OEC Hugh
>> Ross an unbiased observer. Mark, you have to get better sources, this
>> stuff is just junk. I'll say it again, real science is done by
>> scientists, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Second hand
>> quotes of dubious provenance from marginal figures published in
>> non-reviewed forums is no match for actually reading what is going on
>> in the real world of science.
>>
>> Look, I may be sounding very harsh, and I know you are honestly trying
>> to understand all of this, but your understanding is only as good as
>> the trustworthiness of your sources. The web is a marvelous tool for
>> those without access to libraries, but you have to realize that 95% of
>> it is rubbish, and you require very careful reading to find the gold
>> from the dross. In the case of the above quotes, you've managed to
>> mine pure dross.
>
>I think "pure dross" is rather overstating it.
Articles that misrepresent progress in various fields by either
incompetence or design is not "dross"? I would have thought you had
higher standards than that.
>I do acknowledge your point
>and concede there are shortcomings to web & local library resources only.
>Masochistically at times, I value the input from knowledgeable posters here,
>despite our often sharp disagreement. Bad scholarship ultimately serves
>no-one.
>
>One thing which to me is interesting. Whatever the precise status of abio
>research, a generally accepted theory of abiogenesis seems far behind the
>generally accepted theory of evolution.
This surprises you? Abiogenesis is a hard problem, not only do we have
far less direct evidence to deal with than with evolution, there are a
number of distinct subdomains (origin of building blocks, origin of
polymers, self-replicator dynamics, transition of a self replicator
system to a genetic system, origin of the genetic code, origin of
metabolic systems from prebiotic precursors) some of which could only
be addressed in-principle in the last 5 years. Not only that, we have
to work out which of a multiplicity of plausible pathways were
_actually_ involved. In the case of the recent RNA world explosion,
people are busily testing possible metabolic pathways and are able for
the first time to test plausible proposals for the origin of the
genetic system, both experimentally and by comparison with modern
evolved systems.
>Yet the latter accounts for vastly
>more than the former, indeed essentially all life. This inversion seems
>surprising. I frequently hear the claim here that once the first
>self-replicator is found, the rest is easy--just try holding natural
>selection back. Just about anything is possible, in fact almost inevitable.
Really? who has made such claims? I tend to follow abiogenesis in this
group, and I don't recall this claim being made at all, let alone
frequently (although I could be wrong). Message ID's of some of the
claims would be appreciated.
Certainly, the development of living systems from self-replicating
systems is _vastly_, _mindbogglingly_ more likely than the bogus
creationist "bacteria by chance" scenario. A large amount of
theoretical work and computer modeling suggests that self-relicating
systems will develop into more complex, robust "life forms". Early
work with self-replicating peptides confirm certain aspects of the
computer models (expansion into more complex hyper cycles, cross
catalysis etc.), but more work is needed to extend these findings.
However, all these positive indications from theoretical, modeling and
experimental work do NOT translate into "just about anything is
possible". There _does_ seem to be a large number of possible pathways
to things we would call "life", and _IF_ certain conditions are met
(Like Kaufmanns catalytic set theory being true) the formation of
something we would call "life" _is_ almost inevitable (with suitable
caveats about Very Large Rocks hitting the planet, Super Jovians
inconveniently migrating through your planets orbit and so on). While
people have pointed to Kaufmanns ideas as a counter to creationist
misrepresentations, no one to my knowledge has actually claimed that
Kaufmanns ideas have been demonstrated to be correct.
>Which is why some people, notably IDers but also various evolutionist
>post-Darwinians, are questioning the creative power of the simple
>vary-and-select mechanism.
It is not the _only_ mechanism we have, and we have a great deal of
evidence of its efficacy. Remember (and this is relevant to NFLT), it
is NOT a claim of evolutionary biologists or abiogenesis researchers
that natural selection can produce ALL possible OPTIMUM answers to ALL
problems, it just produces good enough answers to some problems.
However, so far, there seems to be no evidence that any of the
mechanisms involved in either Life As We Know It or Biodiversity As We
Know It requires anything beyond, selection, drift, self-organisation
and the other natural mechanisms that are involved in evolution.
It's also notable most of these critics have no clear idea of what the
actual evidence is. Hoyle for example has no clue about actual
abiogenesis scenarios.
>We struggle to explain
Explanations we have, in some detail.
>or reproduce the
>naturalistic formation of a minimal "free-living" self-replicating molecule,
>and yet claim the transformation of such into the constellation of life on
>earth fait accompli, using the magic of natural selection.
No one claims this. That is, the fait accompli bit. We struggle to
explain Ball lightning, yet no-one claims that Ball lightning is
produced by non-natural mechanisms.
>Finally, another piece of implicit evidence at some real intractibility with
>abio theory is the growing interest in astrobiology.
The growing interest in astro-and exobiology has many roots. None of
them really related any perceived intractability of abiogenesis. A lot
of the work in astrobiology deals with how many of the early building
blocks of life (amino acid precursors, PAH's, Quinones, and possibly
even amino acids and nucleotides themselves) could be delivered to an
early earth. This shows how the early stages of the abiogenesis
process could be far more tractable, and less dependent on the precise
conditions of the early earth, but has little to do with the
replicator-bacteria transition.
I would be quite interested in how demonstration of life on Mars
and/or Europa demonstrates the intractability of abiogenesis.
>Fred Hoyle was perhaps out on a limb in his time, but it appears to be gaining credibility,
>including various forms of panspermia.
All panspermia does, irregardless of whether living cells are
delivered to Earth by dust grains or Xordaxian seeder starships, is
move abiogenesis off Earth. New processes of self organization or
selection won't magically happen in the oceans of Xordax, be they
methane or water.
>More musings; we watch and see.
If life is found on Europa, that uses a DNA based genome, but a
different genetic code, and different enzymes with 19 of the 20 amino
acids in earthly life, what would you conclude about abiogenesis?
Cheers! Ian
[a selection of recent references in this area, unfortunately, I don't
have my updated data base with 2000-2001 references)
Otsuka J, and Nozawa Y. (1998 Sep 21). Self-reproducing system can
behave as Maxwell's demon: theoretical illustration under prebiotic
conditions [In Process Citation] J Theor Biol , 194, 205-21.
Unrau PJ, and Bartel DP. (1998 Sep 17). RNA-catalysed nucleotide
synthesis [see comments] Nature , 395, 260-3.
Varetto L. (1998 Jul 27). Studying artificial life with a molecular
automaton [In Process Citation] J Theor Biol , 193, 257-85.
Yao S, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, and Chmielewski J. (1998 Dec 3). Selective
amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide
system. Nature , 396, 447-50.
Trifonov EN, and Bettecken T. (1997 Dec 31). Sequence fossils,
triplet expansion, and reconstruction of earliest codons. Gene , 205,
1-6.
Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR. (1997 Dec 11).
Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a
hypercyclic network. Nature , 390, 591-4.
Abkevich VI, Gutin AM, and Shakhnovich EI. (1997). Computer
simulations of prebiotic evolution. Pac Symp Biocomput , 27-38.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 11 Jan 2002 07:16:17 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
<mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Well, blowed if I'm going to be a POTM seconder here :-)
You can be a thirder, like me :-)
>But I have to say Laurence, if your claims are correct (and from the easily
>verifiable detail in them this seems rather possible) Behe has perhaps some
>explaining to do. For my part upholding competent and honest scholarship
>grudgingly wins over team loyalty.
Grudgingly? why grudgingly?
[snip rest]
Cheers! Ian
John Wilkins
wrote:
> G'Day All
> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
> On 11 Jan 2002 07:16:17 -0500, "Mark & Roslyn Elkington"
> <mar...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> >Well, blowed if I'm going to be a POTM seconder here :-)
>
> You can be a thirder, like me :-)
I already claimed 3rd and 4th. So there.
>
> >But I have to say Laurence, if your claims are correct (and from the easily
> >verifiable detail in them this seems rather possible) Behe has perhaps some
> >explaining to do. For my part upholding competent and honest scholarship
> >grudgingly wins over team loyalty.
>
> Grudgingly? why grudgingly?
That's a psychological statement. I also have found myself grudgingly
disagreeing with Authorities from time to time (eg, my disagreement with
David Hull over replicators). I know how hard it can be. Mark is to be
congratulated for doing it anyway.
Mark. A comment if I may. Larry (I'm sure only his mother and his dean
call him Laurence) is a player in the game Behe purports to pass
judgement upon. Behe can be dismissed on basics, as Larry and others
have shown. It might be time to bethink yourself, in the bowels of
Christ as Cromwell said, that you might be mistaken, at least in your
choice of Authorities here.
I'm very sure there are intellectually honest criticisms to be made of
modern evolutionary biology, and many more to be made of the popular
philosophy that calls itself "neo-Darwinian" from time to time; indeed,
both Larry and I have made some of these criticisms (he did it long
before I did, and I did it in part under his influence). This is not the
same thing as saying that evolution does not occur. You have to deal
with the real world, and the real world evolves, at least here on earth.
I think you are a smart guy, and you certainly show flashes of
intellectual integrity (that's not faint praise - I flash occasionally
myself). Try reading some more basic information on the science first. I
recommend anything by Lewontin (on evolution, not nec. on social issues
like sociobiology) or Dobzhansky (same caveat). The older information is
often clearer than the modern stuff.
>
> [snip rest]
> Cheers! Ian
> =====================================================
> Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
> reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
> Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm