Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

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

[spunkets]

"IT'S ONLY A THEORY"

Folks will have a similar reaction to the one the IRS would have if I put a sticker on my 1040 saying, "Tax law is just a theory. The money's all mine."

[pepsionice]

The best fix for this entire problem...is to take out science altogether in the classroom. Lets double up on math and make this whole problem go away.

[narby]

Look there. Sadsack doesn't even know how many base pairs to plug into his own precious math.

[anguish]

the equations that I gave to you require *you* to plug in values

And here I thought you had already done it and found that abiogenesis was impossible. Surely that must mean that you know how many basepairs are required for a self-replicating entity, and how many such configurations there are.

[Southack]

"And here I thought you had already done it and found that abiogenesis was impossible."

It's axiomatic that abiogenesis occured; we're here.

But did it occur due to unaided "natural" processes, or was there some form of "aid" involved?

For that, we look at the math.

[spunkets]

"We know that viable DNA sequences are long series of base-pairs in precise sequences."

Wonderful!

"Calculating such probabilities for unaided processes correctly forming any of the known or probable (viable) sequences is therefore well within the realm of modern math."

The terms "random" and "nonrandom" are appropriate, not "aided" and "unaided". Failure to model the process with simple random linear functions means the process is nonrandom and you have a lot more to learn. It does not mean, or imply that the process is driven by an intelligent being.

[narby]

I haven't even looked at his "math", If it's what I think it is, radomly trying to find a specific sequence, that's not even the correct way to approach the problem of abiogenesis. It's a wildly parallel process, and doesn't not have a specific sequence goal to ignite abiogenesis. All it has to be is anything that can self reproduce and mutate, and that launches Evolution.

Which Sadsack doesn't even understand.

[anguish]

Semantics, I'm of course talking about your "unaided" process. Maybe you can provide us with the values you used to find the "unaided" process impossible, and hopefully also how you got those values?

[Southack]

"It does not mean, or imply that the process is driven by an intelligent being."

No, actually the math says that it *could* involve an intelligent intervention of some form. More precisely, it says that some form of bias *must* exist to correctly sequence long sets of base-pairs.

That "bias" may or may not be a natural process, but it must exist.

[Southack]

"Maybe you can provide us with the values you used to find the "unaided" process impossible, and hopefully also how you got those values?"

Given non-infinite time (e.g. the 17 billion years of our existing universe), the math in the original link that I provided (with specific values) shows that there *must* be some form of bias (be it natural or intelligent).

[narby]

actually the math says that it *could* involve

I didn't know that math could speak....

[anguish]

It's a wildly parallel processs, and doesn't not have a specific sequence goal to ignite abiogenesis

Of course, but it would nevertheless be interesting to see how he got to his conclusion. Especially as it involves data that would hand him the Nobel prize instantly if he had them.

[anguish]

Given non-infinite time (e.g. the 17 billion years of our existing universe), the math in the original link that I provided (with specific values) shows that there *must* be some form of bias (be it natural or intelligent)

So you say. Now what values are to be used in the math?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Primarily the article is irrelevant because it ignores selection. Random proposes; selection disposes. A random drift "moves" proportional to Sqrt(time) but selection can cause movement proportional Exp(time). (I used to think selection was linear (proportional to time) but I've since figured out that it's much faster.

[narby]

actually the math says that it *could* involve

I haven't ever really looked into the problem. Since it doesn't matter where the first life came from for Evolution to exist, it's irrelevant. (course Sadsack doesn't understand that point)

But the "goal" molecule that can self-reproduce and mutate could be a huge number of different sequences. I have no idea how many possible sequences might do that, but it's got to be considerable.

And since we're talking about just a molecule reproducing and mutating, it could be realy simple.

Then, the process is in parallel. How many sub-living molecules are in play at once, worldwide. 24/7/365 by how many billion years it took to launch.

Just my guess, but I can't see how life couldn't form under those odds on a planet with anything like our conditions.

[Texasforever]

I have one simple question. Why is a sticker saying that evolution is a theory a threat to the scientific community? Did I miss the announcement that evolution has now been declared a scientific fact?

[Doctor Stochastic]

As long as you weren't told to cut the arms off your kids or to drown them.

[narby]

Why is a sticker saying that evolution is a theory a threat to the scientific community?

In case VR is away, I'll take a stab right quick.

In a strictly legal sense, because all similar processes in science are called "theories", the sticker would be OK if it said that. That ALL the stuff in the book were theories.

But to single out Evolution, when it's obvious to any conscious human that it is a religious element that's fighting it, is a First Amendment establishment of religion. (I have some problems with the way the First is interpreted, but that is the common interpretation)

[Texasforever]

But to single out Evolution, when it's obvious to any conscious human that it is a religious element that's fighting it, is a First Amendment establishment of religion

What was the wording on the sticker?

[anguish]

Since it doesn't matter where the first life came from for Evolution to exist, it's irrelevant.

Yeah, had it been a thread about abiogenesis it would have real relevance, even if the problematics are simplified to uselessness in this "math". It's simply impossible to know the entry points to the problem, at least with our current collective knowledge, and even how many there are. Garbage in - garbage out.