Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[narby]

Do you agree with me that the whole ID issue is potentially damaging to faith? Not to mention to conservative politics that seek to do things that faithful people should desire. Such as strict constructionist judges.

All of it hinges on a particular interpretation of Genesis, that not all agree on.

[Southack]

"No one knows the "relevant math",

That's incorrect. The entire scientific community understands and knows the relevant math for calculating the probabilities of unaided processes accurately sequencing data and/or instructions.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have been called far worse on this board (as have others). At no time did you object to such comments. Why should your current mewling be taken seriously?

[spunkets]

" No one knows the "relevant math""

That's correct. The simplistic random sequencing model is completely inappropriate. No one has a model, only a collection of isolated parts and mechanisms. Without a model, there is no math. The math is the model. So if the math shows garbage that does not represent reality, then the model is rubbish.

[WildTurkey]

No, that math is *precisely* what we are discussing (but you'd actually have to read the thread that I gave you to begin with).

I have no intention of wading through a whole 'nother thread. Provide your math or STFU!

[narby]

The mathematical probabilities for unaided processes sequencing instruction sets (e.g. DNA) are absolutely valid for a discussion of abiogenesis, Intelligent Design, and Evolutionary Theory.

Science does not believe that DNA was the first molecule capable of Evolution. And calculations of abiogenesis are irrelevant to Evolution.

We told you that. But you are either to dense to even understand the argument, or dishonest and pretending not to notice our points.

[Southack]

"The reason new things are not perfect is not because the designer is unintelligent or sloppy. It is because it is impossible to predict the properties of anything that is truely new."

That's all fine and well, but still irrelevant. What *matters* is whether a process formed something with or without some type of aid or bias.

We know the answer to that question for computer viri. We know it again for cloning. We know it still once more for how artificially intelligent software programs were formed, and yet again for self-replicating machines.

If you'll look back somewhere around post #237/8 on this thread, you'll see that we also know the answer for DNA-computers and biological machines.

In all of the above, we scientifically *know* that an intelligent designer was required for their formation.

[WildTurkey]

Southhack hereby put on notice for failure to provide math to support his position

[WildTurkey]

Southhack hereby put on notice for failure to provide math to support his position

[Southack]

"Science does not believe that DNA was the first molecule capable of Evolution. And calculations of abiogenesis are irrelevant to Evolution."

No, and no. DNA could very well be the first living template. RNA is another possibility. PNA yet another. None of the above are "known" to be the first, yet.

But the *sequencing* of viable DNA (or RNA) does matter, and we *can* calculate the probabilities for long sequences to be accurately formed by unaided processes (any and all unaided processes, in fact).

...And that probability math is completely germaine to this debate.

[WildTurkey]

But the *sequencing* of viable DNA (or RNA) does matter, and we *can* calculate the probabilities for long sequences to be accurately formed by unaided processes (any and all unaided processes, in fact). ...And that probability math is completely germaine to this debate.

Southhack hereby put on notice for failure to provide math to support his position

[narby]

What *matters* is whether a process formed something with or without some type of aid or bias.

And again, it does not matter whether the first life was "designed". The evidence still shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Evolution took place after that.

And again, for what is it, the third or fourth time, DNA is not suspected as the first self reproducing, Evolution capable molecule. It is assumed that much simpler molecules came first. Making your precious math irrelevant.

[spunkets]

"Do you agree with me that the whole ID issue is potentially damaging to faith?"

Yes, it causes folks to stumble. Present and advocating falsehoods does not lead folks to truth.

" All of it hinges on a particular interpretation of Genesis, that not all agree on."

The truth is unique. Reality contains no contradictions, so where they are apparent, the presence of errors, or falsehoods are highlighted and should be corrected.

[Southack]

"The simplistic random sequencing model is completely inappropriate."

The mathematical model that I gave you was and is valid and appropriate for any and all unaided (by any form of meaningfully intelligent) processes, not merely something "Random" occurring.

You do recognize the distinction between "random" from that of "unaided," yes?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Which Creationist publication claims the Sun is on fire? Even Billy Thompson got that one right.

Of course, were that true, the gravitational pull would not change. (Proof left to the student.)

[WildTurkey]

And exactly WHERE is this "math" you are so proud of?

[Southack]

"DNA is not suspected as the first self reproducing, Evolution capable molecule. It is assumed that much simpler molecules came first. Making your precious math irrelevant."

No, suspicions and assumptions to not make probability math irrelevant.

[narby]

No, and no. DNA could very well be the first living template. RNA is another possibility. PNA yet another. None of the above are "known" to be the first, yet.

Yes... And since those molecules do not have the same complexity, your math is meaningless. As well as it is not known how complex a molecule must be to be self reproducing and thus capable of Evolution.

And again, for about the fifth time, no matter how life came to be, Evolution happened after that.

This discussion is about Evolution, not abiogenesis, so all your efforts are for naught.

Go to bed.

[Southack]

No, that math is *precisely* what we are discussing (but you'd actually have to read the thread that I gave you to begin with).

"I have no intention of wading through a whole 'nother thread. Provide your math or STFU!"

The math *is* provided in the thread that I gave to you. That you want to clutter up this thread (when even after so doing you would still be unable to show math of your own to refute it) serves no useful purpose.

Go to the link. "Wade" through that thread. It's an entire thread of math (the same math that you bizarrely keep requesting).

[WildTurkey]

Until Southack provides a source/link or the math under discussion, I will not debate his particulars since we have no idea of the whole.