talk.origins probability-abiogenesis FAQ criticized
zOz
Extracts from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html :
| Problems with the creationist "it's so improbable" calculations:
The genuine problems are rather on the neo-Darwinian side. BTW,
I'm an uncompromising evolutionist (i.e. I'm convinced of a
continuous emergence of the world and of life).
| 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern"
| protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins,
| by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
A probability of 10^-100 is enough to refute abiogensis, so
it doesn't help to criticize calculations resulting in e.g.
10^-1000000.
For comparison: in the order of 10^20 milliseconds have passed
since the birth of the earth, a planet consisting of in the
order of 10^50 atoms. This results in 10^70 "atom-milliseconds".
It is obvious that the number of any reasonably defined
"abiogenesis events" is by many orders of magnitude lower than
the number of "atom-milliseconds".
Even if we assume that 1) around 10^20 planets could have given
rise to us, and that 2) one single successful abiogenesis event
leads inevitably to higher forms of life, a probability of
10^-100 would still make our existence very improbable.
Because neo-Darwinism is not even consistent with the evolution
of the upright gait in humans, assumption 2) is obviously
untenable. See http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=698302471
| 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with
| fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
This assumption is not necessary in order to refute (purely
materialistic) abiogenesis, because the improbabilty lies
already in functional constraints which are a prerequisite
for any form of self-replication.
If six protoenzymes with each a probability of at most 10^-10
are necessary for self-replication to start, we get already a
probability lower than 10^-60.
The probability of random emergence of a proto-enzyme cannot
be higher than 10^-10 even if it consists of only 10 rather
widespread building blocks.
Such a value must include both the probability that a
correctly bonded system of 10 building blocks arises and the
"combinatorial probability". (0.5 * 0.2)^10 results in 10^-10,
where 0.5 is the probability of correct bonds per building
block and 0.2 the combinatorial probability per building block.
The FAQ ("Coin tossing for beginners and macromolecular
assembly") completely ignores the question of the "bonding
probability". Only the combinatorial probability of a
(32 amino acid long) sequence is taken into account and the
experimental fact that correctly chained 32 aa-long sequences
do not arise abiotically is discarded.
And we must keep in mind that the final product of abiogenesis
must be able to undergo neo-Darwinian evolution and to survive
a change in its environment (e.g. drying up of the primordial
pond).
Also if "not even a protobacteria, or a preprobacteria" is
necessary for further evolution by replication with mutation
and selection to start, "but one or more simple molecules
probably not more than 30-40 subunits long", then we still
remain with the fact that the average probability of correct
bonds with viable neighbours is certainly lower than 0.1 per
subunit. So the probability of the emergence of one "simple
molecule" of this kind is still lower than 10^-30.
On abiotic formation of peptide chains:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=507707704
The abiotic emergence of RNA enzymes is even more questionable
because it contains ribose. Ribose is not even resistent to
water of normal temperature.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja3.html --> ribose
| 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather
| than simultaneous trials.
This statement can be interpreted either as a strawman
or as a summary of a central error of the FAQ, namely the
assumption that whole protoenzymes emerge by simultaneous
trials, and not by sequential steps (i.e. addition and
breaking off of building blocks).
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja6.html --> 21-Mar-1999
| 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
Those who declare simple and logically correct common-sense
reasonings wrong in order to save the currently prevailing
"scientific" dogmas are the ones who "misunderstand what is
meant by a probability calculation".
| 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional
| enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
The low actual number of functionally equivalent proteins and
even DNA-coding sequences is rather evidence against the
relevance of this argument.
See: "The Death of Neo-Darwinism (was: Molecular Sequence Proof of
Common Descent)" in http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja4.html
The fact that each of e.g. 90% of the amino acids of a protein
can be replaced by others without loss of function does not
entail that the protein would still work if most of these
replaceable amino acids were replaced at the same time.
But even if we accept the argument, in this context it does not
change a lot whether the combinatorial probability of a 100 amino-
acid long enzyme is 20^-100 or 4^-100 (leading to 5^100 viable
variants).
| [T]he formation of biological polymers from monomers is a
| function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these
| are decidedly not random.
The laws of chemistry and biochemistry do indeed lead to the
needed chemical bonds. (They also lead to undesired bonds and
to the decay of desired bonds. If peptids are synthesized in
vitro, special methods are needed in order to prevent undesired
chemical bonds.)
However these laws do not concern the question whether a final
sequence is able to fold into an enzyme and to carry out complex
tasks. So these laws have rather to do with the probability
of correctly chained sequences long enough to arise at all
than with the combinatorial probability of such sequences.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
The mystery of evolution explained in a logically consistent way:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
rokimo...@my-deja.com
zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> [ Extended version of my previous critique ]
>
> Extracts from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html :
>
> | Problems with the creationist "it's so improbable" calculations:
>
> The genuine problems are rather on the neo-Darwinian side. BTW,
> I'm an uncompromising evolutionist (i.e. I'm convinced of a
> continuous emergence of the world and of life).
Snip
You seem to be repeating yourself. Everyone else who counts is also
convinced of the continuous emergence of life over many billions of years
on this planet. Before you go off on this rant again you have to
demonstrate that the evolution of extant life forms and the theories
formed to account for this diversity are dependent on our understanding
how abiogenesis happens. I don't know of a single working theory of the
evolution of existing species that is dependent on understanding
abiogenesis. Please demonstrate that our not understanding abiogenesis
in anyway affects the study of how, say, primates evolved from a common
ancestral mammal. If you can do this, you may have some point.
You may also try to counter the arguments against your initial post.
Like your assumption of independence when you, obviously, can't assume
it.
I'd also like to see your calculations for the probability of the
existence of some designer that could make your impossible assumptions
possible. Factor in the fact that we have no experimental evidence that
some designer exists, and that we do have experimental evidence that the
chemical reactions necessary for life can happen. I'm sure that you will
agree that you have to factor in the experimental evidence that
abiogenesis is possible, and the lack of equivalent evidence that the
designer even exists. Wouldn't you say that the probability of the
existence of your designer must be less than the probability that
abiogenesis occurred by natural means? I know that it is impossible for
you to make meaningful calculations when you have no idea about the
parameters (due to lack of evidence), but this does not seem to stop you
from making a hash out of your probability calculations for abiogenesis.
Turn your analysis on itself and tell us what you come up with. You
know, if to evolve a designer you needed to start with 10 cosmic
particals of N dimensions what is the probability that you would evolve a
designer of X complexity, in the course of Y time units capable of
everything you attribute to it. My guess is that it is less than 10^-
60.;-)
Ron Okimoto
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
This is the second last of my posts before I dissapear due to family
and work pressures.
On 4 Jan 2001 11:57:32 -0500, zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>[ Extended version of my previous critique ]
>
>Extracts from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html :
>
>
>| Problems with the creationist "it's so improbable" calculations:
>
>The genuine problems are rather on the neo-Darwinian side. BTW,
>I'm an uncompromising evolutionist (i.e. I'm convinced of a
>continuous emergence of the world and of life).
Now that's a weird twist on neo-Lamarkianism.
>| 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern"
>| protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins,
>| by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
>
>A probability of 10^-100 is enough to refute abiogensis, so
>it doesn't help to criticize calculations resulting in e.g.
>10^-1000000.
This still shows you don't understand, you are trying to calculate a
cumulative probability for a structure that is the end result of a
series of parallel events, that do NOT occur at random, and assuming
that that and only that structure is the one required.
>For comparison: in the order of 10^20 milliseconds have passed
>since the birth of the earth, a planet consisting of in the
>order of 10^50 atoms. This results in 10^70 "atom-milliseconds".
>It is obvious that the number of any reasonably defined
>"abiogenesis events" is by many orders of magnitude lower than
>the number of "atom-milliseconds".
Again, irrelevant. The process of abiogenisis (eitiobiology) is not
about random events, but about chemical and physical processes.
>Even if we assume that 1) around 10^20 planets could have given
>rise to us, and that 2) one single successful abiogenesis event
>leads inevitably to higher forms of life, a probability of
>10^-100 would still make our existence very improbable.
Again, it's a nonsense calculation. The processes are NOT random.
>Because neo-Darwinism is not even consistent with the evolution
>of the upright gait in humans, assumption 2) is obviously
>untenable. See http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=698302471
Cute, but irrelevant. You really have to look up the roles of
developmental genes, where you get a lot of co-ordinated structure in
one go. An interesting example is the axolotl, where a single point
mutation results in a large change in morphology.
>| 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with
>| fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
>
>This assumption is not necessary in order to refute (purely
>materialistic) abiogenesis, because the improbabilty lies
>already in functional constraints which are a prerequisite
>for any form of self-replication.
Definitely not, take for example Kaufmann's catalytic closure system,
where any system of protoenzymes become self replicating, or Eigens
hypercycles (and variants thereof), a hypercycle based on lyine-rich
proteinoid would be very likely. Or look at the metabolism first
systems of Wachterhauser (none of the above three systems are mutually
exclusive by the way). All of which develop stable, self-replicating
systems with high probability (1 in Kaufmanns case).
>If six protoenzymes with each a probability of at most 10^-10
>are necessary for self-replication to start, we get already a
>probability lower than 10^-60.
Heck, in a mole of polypeptides you'd have at least 10^11 high
efficacy enzymes (see below) let alone 6 "protoenzymes", you are
falling into the "sequentiallist" trap again.
>The probability of random emergence of a proto-enzyme cannot
>be higher than 10^-10 even if it consists of only 10 rather
>widespread building blocks.
In fact, the figure is likely to be much less than that. For example,
lysine rich proteinoid is formed with a probability of exactly 1 from
drying of a mixture of amino acids containing lysine, it both a
peptidyl synthetase AND a polynucleotide synthetase. the probability
of _high_eficency_ enzymes is around 1 in 10^12 from work with
catalytic antibodies and ribozyme, the frequency of protoenzymes is
much higher.
>Such a value must include both the probability that a
>correctly bonded system of 10 building blocks arises and the
>"combinatorial probability". (0.5 * 0.2)^10 results in 10^-10,
>where 0.5 is the probability of correct bonds per building
>block and 0.2 the combinatorial probability per building block.
And these figures are nonsense, polypeptide condensation doesn't work
that way.
>The FAQ ("Coin tossing for beginners and macromolecular
>assembly") completely ignores the question of the "bonding
>probability". Only the combinatorial probability of a
>(32 amino acid long) sequence is taken into account and the
>experimental fact that correctly chained 32 aa-long sequences
>do not arise abiotically is discarded.
Oh they don't do they? Had a look at any of Ferris's experiments have
you?
>And we must keep in mind that the final product of abiogenesis
>must be able to undergo neo-Darwinian evolution and to survive
>a change in its environment (e.g. drying up of the primordial
>pond).
Na und?
>Also if "not even a protobacteria, or a preprobacteria" is
>necessary for further evolution by replication with mutation
>and selection to start, "but one or more simple molecules
>probably not more than 30-40 subunits long", then we still
>remain with the fact that the average probability of correct
>bonds with viable neighbours is certainly lower than 0.1 per
>subunit.
Where on earth does this 0.1% figure come from? not chemistry.
>So the probability of the emergence of one "simple
>molecule" of this kind is still lower than 10^-30.
And in a prebiotic ocean with a amino acid concentration of 10^-6M
then we could expect something on the order of 10^9 of these molecules
using the above figures (actually it is somewhat less, but there is
still a hell of a lot of them)
>On abiotic formation of peptide chains:
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=507707704
>
>The abiotic emergence of RNA enzymes is even more questionable
>because it contains ribose. Ribose is not even resistent to
>water of normal temperature.
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja3.html --> ribose
Uh, your dead wrong, ribose is certainly "resistant to water", and is
made in several plausible abiotic reactions, the main problem is that
it is usually only present in small quantities (although some systems
can produce up to 30% of the sugars from formaldehyde condensation as
ribose). However, ribose is not necessary for RNA-like compounds,
Peptide Nucleic acids, Pyranosyl RNA and Teranosyl Nucleic acids all
have the requisite properties to play roles for a ribozymal world.
>
>| 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather
>| than simultaneous trials.
>
>This statement can be interpreted either as a strawman
>or as a summary of a central error of the FAQ, namely the
>assumption that whole protoenzymes emerge by simultaneous
>trials, and not by sequential steps (i.e. addition and
>breaking off of building blocks).
You don't understand the concept of simultaneous trials do you, even
given the one vs multiple coin example. Each individual peptide is
grown by the sequential addition of subunits, but as there are
something like between 10^23 and 10^40 growing peptide chains at any
one time, the time it takes to get a specific sequence (or a class of
sequences) is _much_ faster than the one chain at a time approach.
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja6.html --> 21-Mar-1999
>
>
>| 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
>
>Those who declare simple and logically correct common-sense
>reasonings wrong in order to save the currently prevailing
>"scientific" dogmas are the ones who "misunderstand what is
>meant by a probability calculation".
In science "common sense" is very often wrong. But this is not the
issue. The issue is correct statistical reasoning (and an appreciation
of frequentist vs Bayesian probability approaches). Doing probability
calculations based on a false hypothesis of randomness is not going to
get you anywhere.
>| 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional
>| enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
>
>The low actual number of functionally equivalent proteins and
>even DNA-coding sequences is rather evidence against the
>relevance of this argument.
Uh, no. There is a high number of functionally equivalent proteins,
for example the various independent serine proteases with minimal
sequence homology, the swappable PAX_9 eyeless proteins etc.etc.
>See: "The Death of Neo-Darwinism (was: Molecular Sequence Proof of
>Common Descent)" in http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja4.html
The above isn't relevant to the issue, but you need to read up on
silent mutations, single nucleotide polymorphisms and neutral drift
(remember that the majority of neutral mutations are lost rapidly to
genetic drift)
>The fact that each of e.g. 90% of the amino acids of a protein
>can be replaced by others without loss of function does not
>entail that the protein would still work if most of these
>replaceable amino acids were replaced at the same time.
Yes, in fact it does, eg in the RNAse enzyme Barnase you can replace
the entire core with random sequences in one go with no effect on the
enzyme activity. However, this is not the issue
>But even if we accept the argument, in this context it does not
>change a lot whether the combinatorial probability of a 100 amino-
>acid long enzyme is 20^-100 or 4^-100 (leading to 5^100 viable
>variants).
Well, yes it does. Work with ribozymes and catalytic antibodies shows
that there is roughly 1 high efficiency enzyme per 10^12 random
sequences, in a mole of random polypeptides or polynucleotides (which
is a pretty trivial amount of polywhatevers) then you would have
10^11 efficient enzymes, by no means inconsiderable. Given that we
don't really need high efficiency enzymes (eg the lysine proteinoid is
an example), the number of potential enzymes is much higher.
>| [T]he formation of biological polymers from monomers is a
>| function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these
>| are decidedly not random.
>
>The laws of chemistry and biochemistry do indeed lead to the
>needed chemical bonds. (They also lead to undesired bonds and
>to the decay of desired bonds. If peptids are synthesized in
>vitro, special methods are needed in order to prevent undesired
>chemical bonds.)
Name them. Ever done any solid phase peptide synthesis? What do you
think happens on the mineral surfaces in the Ferris type experiments?
>However these laws do not concern the question whether a final
>sequence is able to fold into an enzyme and to carry out complex
>tasks.
Oh yes they do. We don't fully understand the laws that govern protein
folding, but it is a physicochemical process, and enzyme activity is
likewise a chemical process the activity of serine proteases is
determined largely by the chemistry of serine. similarly, the folding
and enzymic activity of lysine rich proteinoid, derived from heating a
simple mixture of amino acids, is the result of basic chemical and
physical laws.
>So these laws have rather to do with the probability
>of correctly chained sequences long enough to arise at all
>than with the combinatorial probability of such sequences.
Now that is completely wrong.
Cheers! Ian
References:
Nelson KE, Levy M, and Miller SL. (2000 Apr 11). Peptide nucleic
acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A , 97, 3868-71.
Ferris JP. (1999 Jun). Prebiotic synthesis on minerals: bridging the
prebiotic and RNA worlds. Biol Bull , 196, 311-4.
Jeffares DC, Poole AM, and Penny D. (1998 Jan). Relics from the RNA
world. J Mol Evol , 46, 18-36.
Orgel LE. (1998 Dec). The origin of life--a review of facts and
speculations. Trends Biochem Sci , 23, 491-5.
Miller SL. (1997 Mar). Peptide nucleic acids and prebiotic chemistry
[news] [see comments] Nat Struct Biol , 4, 167-9.
Di Giulio M. (1997 Dec). On the RNA world: evidence in favor of an
early ribonucleopeptide world. J Mol Evol , 45, 571-8.
Hager AJ, and Szostak JW. (1997 Aug). Isolation of novel ribozymes
that ligate AMP-activated RNA substrates. Chem Biol , 4, 607-17.
James KD, and Ellington AD. (1997 Aug). Surprising fidelity of
template-directed chemical ligation of oligonucleotides [In Process
Citation] Chem Biol , 4, 595-605.
Bolli M, Micura R, and Eschenmoser A. (1997 Apr). Pyranosyl-RNA:
chiroselective self-assembly of base sequences by ligative
oligomerization of tetranucleotide-2',3'-cyclophosphates (with a
commentary concerning the origin of biomolecular homochirality). Chem
Biol , 4, 309-20.
Ekland EH, and Bartel DP. (1996 Sep 12). RNA-catalysed RNA
polymerization using nucleoside triphosphates. Nature , 383, 192.
Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis
of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature
, 381, 59-61.
Ertem G, and Ferris JP. (1996 Jan 18). Synthesis of RNA oligomers on
heterogeneous templates. Nature , 379, 238-40.
Fox SW. (1984). Self-sequencing of amino acids and origins of
polyfunctional protocells. Orig Life , 14, 485-8.
Lacey JC Jr, Yuki A, and Fox SW. (1979 Mar). Coprecipitation of
thermal lysine-rich proteinoids with polyribonucleotides. Biosystems ,
11, 1-7.
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
zOz
because we start from very different premises, it is hopeless
for us to convince one another. You cannot take serious
panpsychism despite the fact that the most revolutionary and
important (by his influence on other scientists) founder of
modern science, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was a panpsychist.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=515913346
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569040233 ***
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=628287529
On the other side, I cannot take serious your belief that
the information stored in amino acid sequences or DNA
sequences can be enough to explain complex behaviour of
enzymes, let alone instinctive behaviour of animals or even
human self-consciousness.
Darwin says that our ancestors were monkeys. I say we were
these monkeys ourselves. Don't you like the idea that you
were a monkey 10 million years ago?
A quote from http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
"Is it by chance that we have been born just in the 20th
century, in the way other souls were and will be born in
other centuries? If you already had lived in the times of
mammoths, would it then be impossible for you to live now?
Are there any sound reasons suggesting that the souls of
the dead and the souls of persons not yet born must be
different from all the souls living now?"
I cannot reply to your criticism* of my critique of your
probability-abiogenesis FAQ without repeating myself. So I
only refer once again to my previous writings, especially from
March 1999: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html
* http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=714365573
Only one short remark: even if the prebiotic ocean contained
once an amino acid concentration of 10^-6M, it certainly would
have consisted of a racemic mixture of R-forms and L-forms.
By the way, does anybody know an experiment showing relevant
enzymatic activity of proteinoids (surpassing catalytic
activity of atoms and simply molecules) consisting either
of a racemic mixture or exclusively of mirror-form building
blocks? In the case of abiogenesis research, experiments
with mirror forms should be taken more serious, because we
can be rather sure that it is not primarily the work of
preexisting enzymes or ribozymes which is responsible for
the results.
Ian, I'm very grateful for the debates I we've had together.
It is true that I've attacked you several times rather
sharply, but the more serious I take a poster and the higher
his reputation, the less cautious I'm in attacking.
I remain convinced that at the latest in your next life
you will recognize that I'm essentially right.
Good luck!
Cheers, Wolfgang
B Kildow
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> because we start from very different premises, it is hopeless
> for us to convince one another. You cannot take serious
> panpsychism despite the fact that the most revolutionary and
> important (by his influence on other scientists) founder of
> modern science, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was a panpsychist.
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=515913346
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569040233 ***
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=628287529
>
> On the other side, I cannot take serious your belief that
> the information stored in amino acid sequences or DNA
> sequences can be enough to explain complex behaviour of
> enzymes, let alone instinctive behaviour of animals or even
> human self-consciousness.
>
> Darwin says that our ancestors were monkeys. I say we were
> these monkeys ourselves. Don't you like the idea that you
> were a monkey 10 million years ago?
>
Not my place to reply, but you may want to actually read "The Origin of
Species" by Charles Darwin. He does not say humans are descended from
monkeys. Or apes. Or bananas.
BK
Ken Cox
> You cannot take serious
> panpsychism despite the fact that the most revolutionary and
> important (by his influence on other scientists) founder of
> modern science, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was a panpsychist.
Amount of modern science that originated with Kepler's
panpsychist beliefs: 0
Amount of modern science that originated from Kepler when he
was not trying to apply his panpsychist beliefs: more than 0.
This is not an uncommon thing, by the way. Newton's alchemy
went nohwere; his physics and optics founded new fields. The
creationists on talk.origins often refer to various historical
scientists, such as Newton or Kelvin, as creationists, but in
all cases their scientific work was not based on creationism.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Jonathan Stone
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>zOz wrote:
>> You cannot take serious
>> panpsychism despite the fact that the most revolutionary and
>> important (by his influence on other scientists) founder of
>> modern science, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was a panpsychist.
>
>Amount of modern science that originated with Kepler's
>panpsychist beliefs: 0
>
>Amount of modern science that originated from Kepler when he
>was not trying to apply his panpsychist beliefs: more than 0.
>
>
>This is not an uncommon thing, by the way. Newton's alchemy
>went nohwere;
Be fair. The alchemy didn't hurt him in getting the job as
Master of the Royal Mint.
>his physics and optics founded new fields.
and the calculus went a fair way, too. (Didn't Newton invent
the calulus of variations overnight, to solve what was essentially
a dinner-table puzzle? or is that academic legend?)
zOz
|| = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=714676276
|| You cannot take serious
|| panpsychism despite the fact that the most revolutionary and
|| important (by his influence on other scientists) founder of
|| modern science, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was a panpsychist.
|
| Amount of modern science that originated with Kepler's
| panpsychist beliefs: 0
I'm sure that panpsychism was a guiding principle for many
important scientific breakthroughs which were only later
declared to be successes of pure materialism.
The main insight of panpsychism is the recognition that
plants and animals do not grow from dead matter but are
built up by invisible animated entities with the involvement
of perception and intelligence. In the meanwhile these
"invisible" entities building up macroscopic organisms have
even been detected (cells, sub-cellular particles and
enzymes), but in disagreement with common sense (i.e. simple
probability calculations) the extremely purposeful behaviour
of such entities is declared to derive from physical and
chemical laws alone.
The variant of panpsychism my evolution theory is based on
can be traced back at least to Nicolaus Cusanus. Here two
extracts from www.britannica.com :
' Nicholas Of Cusa
' b. 1401, Kues, Trier
' d. Aug. 11, 1464, Todi, Papal States
'
' German NIKOLAUS VON CUSA [KUES], Latin NICOLAUS CUSANUS,
' cardinal, mathematician, scholar, experimental scientist, and
' influential philosopher who stressed the incomplete nature of
' man's knowledge of God and of the universe.
' ...
' Among Cusa's other interests were diagnostic medicine
' and applied science. He emphasized knowledge through
' experimentation and anticipated the work of the astronomer
' Copernicus by discerning a movement in the universe that did
' not centre in the Earth, although the Earth contributed to that
' movement. Cusa's study of plant growth, from which he concluded
' that plants absorb nourishment from the air, was the first
' modern formal experiment in biology and the first proof that
' air has weight. Numerous other developments, including a map
' of Europe, can also be traced to Cusa. ...
Panpsychism certainly had a strong influence not only on
the evolution of philosophy (especially on idealism) but also
on psychology. In "De Natura, & Origine Mentis" and "De Origine,
& Natura Affectuum" of his main work "Ethica" Baruch Spinoza
(1632-1677) analizes the psychological makeup of humans in a
partially astonishingly modern way, especially stressing the
importance of associative links in the soul.
| Amount of modern science that originated from Kepler when he
| was not trying to apply his panpsychist beliefs: more than 0.
Quotations from 'Thematic origins of scientific thought' by Gerald
Holton, Harvard U.Press, 1973, p.76:
"Kepler's first recognition is that forces between bodies are
caused not by their relative positions or their geometrical
arrangements, as was accepted by Aristotle, Ptolemy, and
Copernicus, but by mechanical interactions between material
objects. Already in the Mysterium Cosmographicum [1596] (Chap.
17) he announced "Nullum punctum, nullum centrum grave est,"
and he gave the example of the attraction between a magnet and
a piece of iron. In William Gilbert's De Magnete (1600),
published four years later, Kepler finds a careful explanation
that the action of magnets seems to come from the pole points,
but must be attributed to the parts of the body, not the points."
"In the Introduction to the Astronomia Nova [1609], [...],
Kepler is quite explicit: [...]
'Gravitation consists in the mutual bodily striving among
related bodies toward union or connection; (of this order is
also the magnetic force).'"
(Further extracts can be found in
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625886119
and in references of my previous post of this thread.)
I doubt that either Galilei (an advocate of epicycles who
ridiculed Kepler's invisible gravitational forces and his
essentially correct explanation of the tides) or Newton could
have detected universal gravitation based on their naive
materialism. The metaphysical assumption (of Newton) that
gravitation is mediated by material causes propagating at a
finite speed does not only completely spoil both Kepler's
and Newton's theories, but is further responsible for many
inconsistencies of modern physics.
Let us assume for the sake of my following fictitious
conversation between Keplerus and Coxus that Aristarchus of
Samos was the most revolutionary and important (by his influence
on other astronomers) founder of pre-Keplerian astronomy. (If
Aristarchus should have been the reincarnation of Pythagoras
of Samos, Socrates and Aristotle, then this assumption may
actually be likely).
Keplerus (in Latin):
"You cannot take serious heliocentrism despite the fact
that the most revolutionary and important (by his influence
on other astronomers) founder of classical astronomy,
Aristarchus of Samos, was a heliocentrist."
Coxus (in Latin):
"Amount of modern science that originated with Aristarchus'
heliocentrist beliefs: 0
Amount of modern science that originated from Aristarchus
when he was not trying to apply his heliocentrist beliefs:
more than 0.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
Life and evolution explained pannaturalistically*:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
*pannaturalism = (pan)materialism + (pan)psychism = pantheism
David Ewan Kahana
> In article <3A5E4252...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >zOz wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> >his physics and optics founded new fields.
>
> and the calculus went a fair way, too. (Didn't Newton invent
> the calulus of variations overnight, to solve what was essentially
> a dinner-table puzzle? or is that academic legend?)
>
That would be the problem of the curve of least time connecting
two points in a gravitational field, to which the solution is
a brachistochrone? The way I heard this story was as follows:
Euler was told an unattributed solution, pronounced it correct, and
said that it had the stamp of `the lion' on it. `The lion,' of course,
was Isaac Newton.
I don't know whether documentary evidence exists to support the
story or not. Newton was notoriously reluctant to publish his
work on calculus.
cheers,
- dave k.
David Ewan Kahana
> Jonathan Stone wrote:
>
> > In article <3A5E4252...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> > Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > >zOz wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > >his physics and optics founded new fields.
> >
> > and the calculus went a fair way, too. (Didn't Newton invent
> > the calulus of variations overnight, to solve what was essentially
> > a dinner-table puzzle? or is that academic legend?)
> >
>
> That would be the problem of the curve of least time connecting
> two points in a gravitational field, to which the solution is
> a brachistochrone?
Sorry, please read cycloid for brachistochrone here. The brachistochrone
is of course the minimum time curve connecting two points for a given
type of force field. In a uniform gravitational field the solution is a cycloid.
Anyway, I am pretty sure that it was Bernoulli who invented the problem.
cheers,
- dave k.
Paul J. Gans
Damn. Bananas are out?
I'm so disappointed.
---- Paul J. Gans