Since this is the thread to discuss the "The Mathematician's View of Evolution" by Sewell
and there was an updated version of the paper posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1704943/posts?page=329#329
'thought it would be prudent [at this juncture : ) ] to highlight a few quotes from the updated article.
Quotes from updated Sewell article:
"....to understand the real problem with Darwinism: it is simply that it is extremely improbable."
"Natural forces, such as corrosion, erosion, fire and explosions, do not create order, they destroy it. The second law is all about probability. The reason natural forces may turn a spaceship into a pile of rubble but not vice-versa is probability: of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could fly to the moon and back.”
“So I wrote a reply, ‘Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?’”….interesting discussion here w/ equations in appendix
“…..I offered the tautology that ‘if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes the increase not extremely improbable.’ The fact that order is disappearing in the next room does not make it any easier for computers to appear in our room—unless this order is disappearing *into* our room, and then only if it is a type of order that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example, computers…..”
“But there is no other phenomenon anywhere that gives such an extreme impression of violating the second law; the development of life on Earth is completely unique. I believe the development of life has indeed violated the “supreme” law of Nature, in a most spectacular way, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn’t, that, under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy could cause atoms to arrange themselves into computers and nuclear power plants and spaceships. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and people who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law, would be given a measure of respect……”
These are quotes.
Any quote is by definition "quote-mining".
All "quote-mining" is by definition false.
Therefore all quotes must certainly be false.
There is never a quote which could ever be true.
Pardon the sarcasm, however the absurdity and improbability of a purely chance universe having life that spontaneously generates has put me in a sarcastic mood:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1704943/posts?page=246#246