Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
This is part two of the famous "Million Monkeys Typing On Keyboards for a Million Years Could Produce The Works of Shakespeare" - Debunked Mathematically.
For the Thread that inadvertently kicked started these mathematical discussions, Click Here
For the Original math thread, Click Here
Egad!
By that logic you could prove "Plato" the platy was "Splifford" the ASCII bat.
I made a coherent statement, an observation.
You posed no questions. When I say your post was incoherent I mean it.
For example data is not cultural no matter what the context. It is not data is it can be relative.
Pointing out a massive shortcoming in your post is not ad hominum. Ad hominum would be saying you are immoral or because you have red hair (or whatever) you are this that or the other thing.
On the contrary, science requires that we base our conclusions on evidence. What have we observed? Have we ever observed any cellular organism without DNA?
DNA isn't a closet, right. Sometimes the molecular aspects of it are not fully grasped.
But we can say the cell or the organism is the closet.
It ends up the same, information is encoded in the genes. The sequence is the info, yes but there is a repository.
Analogies always are lacking a bit.
The most primitive or basic organisms express about 10,000 proiteins I think. Generally around 10,000 genes or so is the lowest known genome.
1) Ignorance of basic RBC biology 2) Specious words games concerning nucleic acid.
My (mistaken) impression is you were bright enough to know the nature of your own comments.
Can we state that the sequence of the A, C, G, and T bases in that genome matters (i.e., if we randomly move them around will we get something other than the same organism)?
Actually, that's what the math shows. Why would you call that irrelevant?
Why don't you read more than two lines at a time? I answered that one already:
But who cares? Nobody suggests that such a thing happens - its a strawman.
You are clearly not interested in dialogue or debate, facts or logical argument. You would rather blindly continue posting your half-truths and inanities in an attempt at willful ignorance. You are, in that sense, a perfect creationist. God help us all if you teach children.
"Because life did not spontaneously appear as a fully formed DNA-based cell, but rather arose through a process of selection and chemistry, Watson's math is irrelevant."
Are you claiming that Life first arose from an incompletely formed DNA-based cell?
Cute. Thank you for playing, please try again.
Still waiting for you to explain the relevance of your article to anything remotely resembling chemistry. As well as responses to this, this, and this, and this. Three threads, and you still just duck, dodge, and run away. I notice you've never returned to your computer virus, auto junkyard, and Occam's razor arguments. Is this another one you will conveniently ignore now that you've been proven wrong?
"Cute. Thank you for playing, please try again." - cracker
Ahh, but you didn't answer the question...
Again, any evidence by you that this bears any relation to the development of complex chemical compounds would be nice. Especially given the arguments by others here (over and over again) as to why Watson is totally irrelevant to complex chemical formation.
No, you didn't answer mine.
Yes. Not even yes, but of course. That is the entire crux of the matter.
The sequence is the info. Change them and it is completely different.
"Yes. Not even yes, but of course. That is the entire crux of the matter. "
The sequence is the info. Change them and it is completely different." - tallhappy
Can we agree that Watson's math applies to the sequencing of data?
Who's Watson?
Thank you. That's closer to an argument. Now that you've told us what "data" is not, maybe you can tell us what "data" IS, and how it applies to chemistry? How much "data" is contained in a molecule of Methane? Is there any more in a molecule of Octane? Or in an amino acid? How much more?
These are all questions that have not been answered yet. Neither Southack nor you have been able to describe the information content of a peptide chain yet, beyond simply asserting that it exists. How do you know this, and how do you measure it?
The author of the article at the top of the thread. You've already hinted (in your 140) that he's an idiot.
Disingenuous. The author is specifically talking about "the first living cell". Extrapolation cannot be avoided.
Sigh... Watson wrote the math that we are discussing in this thread. You can view it in the first post.
It doesn't apply to the sequencing of chemical bonds at the molecular level. Certain elements bond, others don't. If you have molecules of carbon, oxygen, argon and krypton floating around together, the carbon will bond with the oxygen, not with the argon or krypton. If Watson's math assumes that any molecule has an equal chance of bonding with any other molecule, it is not valid for predicting the odds of certain chemical reactions occurring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.