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
The hard drive (or closet) analogy is invalid because DNA is formed as information is encoded.
The Watson's math is correct in isolation. Where he fails is in his underlying assumptions regarding the composition of First Life.
Why posit that life sprang forth fully formed, like Athena from Zeus's forehead? I would argue that is an implausible and highly unlikely scenario. Watson sets the minimum rquirements unreasonably high, from there the proof was easy.
If you assume that a baby's first words will be in the form of a sonnet, then it's quite easy to prove that a baby will never speak.
"Disingenuous. The author is specifically talking about "the first living cell". Extrapolation cannot be avoided." - Physicist
Do we have any evidence in hand that the first living cellular organism formed without DNA?
The basic data content for proteins is in the sequence of a set of 20 amino acids in the protein polymer. For Nucleic acid it is in the sequence of a set of 5 nucleic acids in the nucleic acid polymer.
Why are you focusing on such trivialities? The genetic code is known.
It was incredibly wordy and it began with an explanation of scientific notation.
If the audience for an article needs to be taught what scientific notation is, it seems to then go on to a technical mathematical analysis is ludicrous.
Who's he writing for?
The burden of proof is on you to show that it formed with DNA.
One doesn't follow the other. A double-helix chemical structure can form without having the sequencing necessary for any form of life. You can form a double-helix structure without encoding data simply by mixing random base pairs. However, DNA for a living organism will have the necessary sequencing for life. The data is in the unique sequence of the bases (A, C, G, and T), after all, so the hard drive analogy is valid because it likewise deals with data.
To answer your fundamental question, yes. Mathematical analysis of sequence information is relevant and practical.
If anyone is trying to argue it is not, then they are mixed up. If they are trying to argue a specific analysis is incorrect, that's another issue.
I know how this always breaks down. One person says the odds of the complex nature of the bacterial genome occuring are so high as to be impossible, much less the human genome.
The mat can be argued about. The response is usually the vast amounts of time that allowed the odds to be overcome.
Here is how it ultimately breaks down.
Atheist says no matter what the odds are, it happened, therefore it isn't impossible.
"The burden of proof is on you to show that it formed with DNA." - Physicist
All scientific evidence shows that all cellular organisms have DNA. Your claim for the first life forming without DNA is outside that body of evidence.
Thus, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
If I've made some errors, perhaps you could correct them. Your knowledge would be welcome, seeing as how your charm has fallen flat.
Watson deals with that claim in his article for this thread as well as in the earlier math thread.
Thanks, but I'm not certain that everyone understands that fact...
The basic data content for proteins is in the sequence of a set of 20 amino acids in the protein polymer. For Nucleic acid it is in the sequence of a set of 5 nucleic acids in the nucleic acid polymer.
Good. And how much "data" is that? One unit, three, twenty-six? The problem is that before we go around making statistical claims about "data" in chemical reactions, we need a way to quantify that data. None such method exists. Are you suggesting that each separate base-pair is a datum? Or each protein codon? Or each amino acid? Is there more or less data in a 41-base string of DNA than in the Hamlet quotation in the Watson article? (If you prefer to unchain yourself from Watson's idiocy, please say so. I have assumed otherwise.)
More importantly, the claim was that such "data" cannot arise spontaneously. But if proteins contain data, the claim is false because proteins in fact can arise as the result of unaided, undirected chemical interactions from less-complex precursors. See this FAQ.
Why are you focusing on such trivialities? The genetic code is known.
I am aware of that.
You are assuming that DNA is a a blueprint. This has been the most widely used analogy for decades, but it fails on a number of fronts. Blueprints can be read and the final product rendered as it would appear if built.
DNA cannot be read and rendered this way. You can possibly read a few fragments and interpret misspellings, but you cannot predict the outcome of a major change.
And even you had the Godlike power to render the shape of an organism from its DNA, you could not predict its viability, particulary in competition with other organisms. Heck, we can't even predict the outcome of Battlebots in competition. this is why wastage is such a common feature of living systems.
I made no such claim. I merely demonstrated that the possibility cannot be discounted, and that's sufficient to destroy the author's argument.
is outside that body of evidence.
No more so than the author's claim that the first cell had DNA. Today's cells are not the first cells; I reject that your "body of evidence" is entirely relevant.
That's incorrect. It's axiomatic that some data could form arise by chance.
The claim is that large amounts of precise sequencing of data can not mathematically arise by chance in the 17 Billion years of our known universe.
Thanks, but I'm not certain that everyone understands that fact...
Still waiting for the responses to myriad questions regarding early chemistry and DNA precursors. Why won't you answer them? You haven't mentioned "selection pressures" in over 100 posts - I wonder why?
And there's still my 169.
The claim is that large amounts of precise sequencing of data can not mathematically arise by chance in the 17 Billion years of our known universe.
Glad we agree that some data can emerge un-aided.
The next issue, however, is your description of "large". What is "large" - refering back to JennyP's discussion of a 32-mer self-replicating peptide chain. Is that too large? I really wish you'd give us some way to quantify these numbers.
And, of course, it's all still a strawman because nobody argues that DNA arose "by chance" - there have been selection pressures at work since the earliest days, a fact you have yet to address.
OK. But, it doesn't matter because this is a question of belief. The atheist doesn't believe in supernatural forces or events. The universe is material, in their view, and all things have come in to existence via materialistic processes. Because there is no superior non-material intelligence or supernatural events, what we see must have come in to existence without it.
The mathematical analyses are theoretical. But the existence of life is observed and observed trumps theoretical every time.
Therefore in that world view, since life exists, any mathematical model that precludes it from occuring naturally is inherently wrong based on the observable fact that life exists.
If they don't, they do not understand basic molecular biology.
The properties of the genetic code were determined prior to the specifics by mathematical analysis of the known properties of proteins and nucleic acids.
It was determined it must be a triplet code using a a mathematical analysis before the first codon was identified.
Mathematical analysis is interwined with molecular biology from the beginning.
Look at Mendel, his stuff was all mathematical and based on the analysis of his peas.
The idea is one of an indelible miracle that would alleviate modern mans dependence on testimony of persons in the past. My proposal is not 'writing on some rocks' it is a huge alteration of the features of the moon so -- at least -- the word 'Jesus' is visible with the naked eye.
But I submit that you have no idea of what you would do if you were G-d because you and G-d are nothing alike.
Ah yes, the old 'God neednt be rational' argument. Followed to its conclusion, one could say that the devil and evil are tools or faces of God, and there is no reason to assume God sifting the world to extract good, or to extract evil. Perhaps both suit him.
Ever hear of "Just so" stories, stories whose elements are contrived to fit a reality or agenda of the writer. God is the ultimate "Just so" story, anything that doesnt fit can be dismissed as idiosyncrasy or eccentricity of God, or driven by some mysterious goal or reasoning of God.
But only when the discrepency doesn't fit with peoples ideas of God is this tactic invoked. For instance, none would dare contemplate that 'appearing good and loving' might be a PR stance by God whose true motivations are something else. No, of course not, to believers certain 'facts' about God are incontravertable and strangely immune from the critique of asserting that such might be a mere tactic of God, something insincere that He does for a mysterious purpose.
So, you're blaming your unwillingness to accept Jesus on what other people do? Why not go to the source, Jesus Himself, and make your decision on that basis alone?
Accept Jesus as what? That is the question.
Let me put it this way, I do not believe in a God that 'concerns himself' with the activities of man. I do not believe in a 'boot camp' world where God sits back and sees how well we do -- stepping in here and there when someone beckons him in prayer.
Therefore the idea of a God-man has no foundation on which to rest. That is not to say that I do not honor that-which-Jesus-illustrates-through-his-life-or-has-come-to-represent-through-an-evolving-symbol-or-myth however his reality is composed.
I do however have misgivings about the nature of Christianity as it effects the psychology of man. An admonishment to passivity and submission can become inappropriate as the disposition of the subject changes, Christianity appears to be on a suicide mission because it clings to these type of absolutes. Also, I have a BIG problem with the fatalism of the Millennialism or 'end-times' that Christianity fosters. The extent that this fatalism infects even the irreligious is frightening and is the ultimate in defeatism, it excuses apathy, it makes all the woes of the world 'divinly ordained' because 'then Jesus will come'.
Utter crap. I personally damn those who hold those ideas. Ideas so insidious and treacherous -- an utter betrayal to the spirit of mankind. Helplessness made holy. Disgusting.
yourself as G-d. Why am I not surprised?
I made special attempt to show that such was not my claim, yet you are still motivated to this preposterous slander. Why?
Is it that I dare think for myself? Is it that I reject the assertion of a nebulous-undefinable-God-at-best? Is it that I am offended by the idea of a God who places my faith in dogma above my abilities of reason as the determanent of my acceptance?
Let us assume that there is a God exactly as you concieve him. What would this God say if I said:
"I reject the notion that you made man dependent on you, or that you would reward men for having 'Faith', when faith is an emotion that finds affinity in any ideal that brings the heart or soul comfort, be the ideal 'truly divine' or a concoction of man."
"I assert man is complete, with the instincts to recognise right from wrong."
Luke 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within[2] you."
This passage to me represents the truth that man has the complete means within to know his proper path, he need not appeal or submit to dogma, sages, clergy or churches to show him the way. Proper use of rationality and empathy by a mind that is not divided against itself results in thoughts, words and deeds that futher all that is good and expose and exorcise that which is evil.
Man is a creature who lives in a world of ideas, his reality is defined by symbols -- words.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
The word is truth. Truth is the fidelity between mans inner reality and the words he uses. Tolkien showed very well the dangers and powers of words that seduce and manipulate in his dialogs. To speak and adhere to truth is the antibody to such 'spells'.
Religion as it stands is just such a spell. It is the pretender-to-God. God -- as I described it, as a super-conciousness that conciousness has constructed -- is not 'inferior' because it is not 'the creator', I am telling the truth of its nature, I am pulling the idea of God from the storybook context of all mans religions.
I think this principle is recognized by a great many who are not hung up on the ideas of God-is-X, God-must-be-Y-to-be-God.
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.