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
Strange assumption based on what I have written.
I would ask that you likewise unchain yourself from talk.origens idiocy as well.
To answer your question, a single base is a datum. As can be the codon, the aa the entire aa sequence in a mature protein etc...And, the atoms of a nucleic acid in a DNA polymer could be datums. Data exist as how the researcher defines them.
Data is not the same thing as raw information.
1. Nobody suggests that DNA emerged fully formed - it was proceded by an age of RNA-based chemistry.
I agree with the RNA world theory as far as this subject, but you'd be surprised how "controversial" it is. It is not universally accepted by any means.
Still, the question would then simply be bounced a step and you'd have to then say, "Nobody suggests that RNA emerged fully formed".
2. Pre-RNA molecules/structures would still have to be self-replicating, thus introducing a variety of selection pressures that would accelerate the rate of information retention for re-use in a subsequent iteration.
Fine, but totally theoretical.
3. How much "data" is contained in a self-replicating compound? Is it more or less than in a sentence of Hamlet? Your Hamlet string has behind it a whole language, with idiom and abstract meaning, embeded in a complex cultural context. The compound only needs to specify how to make a copy of itself.
I don't get this Hamlet stuff. I don't get the point of this approach.
That would be determined to be a random occurance of the rocks on the moon, which wouldn't be there except that the moon is one of only billions and billions of moons and the unverse has had plenty of time to come up with a moon whose rocks appear to spell out 'Jesus'.
But you are funny.
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.
G-d is very rational, but He is not like you or me.
Fortunately, you don't have to try to figure Him out by reason. You have His word.
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,
Why do you suppose that is? There are many religions whose gods are not required to be "good."
Accept Jesus as what? That is the question.
Accept Him as what He claimed to be.
I made special attempt to show that such was not my claim, yet you are still motivated to this preposterous slander. Why?
mindprism.com from post 67: Like Aesops fables, the important thing is that they represent truths not that they *are* true. Religion and God are the result of concious matter ascribing purpose, affinity and divinity to itself -- as a phenomena, not as individual mini-gods. God is within, not without.
Forgive me if I misunderstood, but if you didn't mean that G-d is within you, what exactly did you mean that G-d is within?
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?
No. It's that you deny the reality of the real because it would make you feel bad.
Let us assume that there is a God exactly as you concieve him. What would this God say if I said:
Ask Him, not me. I don't speak for Him except what He has written down (so all can read and let me know if I got it right).
But I would say that you don't know what faith is.
Shalom.
Data is not the same thing as raw information.
Makes sense to me. I suspect we will soon need to find a new subject to disagree over. :) Indeed, the data is up to the researcher to define.
1. Nobody suggests that DNA emerged fully formed - it was proceded by an age of RNA-based chemistry. --me
I agree with the RNA world theory as far as this subject, but you'd be surprised how "controversial" it is. It is not universally accepted by any means.
Agreed. The experimental chemistry is not as well developed as we would like, the computer models are still too complex to run, and there is no fossil evidence. But it is plausible and testable, and it is the best scientific hypothesis to fit the observed facts. Non-scientific hypotheses (including ID) are options at this point, but they would be, of course, non-scientific.
Still, the question would then simply be bounced a step and you'd have to then say, "Nobody suggests that RNA emerged fully formed".
Indeed, I do not suggest such a thing. RNA emerged from simpler protiens and peptide strings, etc... which all emerged in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back progression from the primordial stew. As such, environmental and selection pressures operated to favor complexity almost from the beginning.
Fine, but totally theoretical.
Well, the chemistry is a bit more promising than that. I've linked to a few articles over the last two hundred or so posts. Others here have offered more technical assessments as well.
I don't get this Hamlet stuff. I don't get the point of this approach.
Given your opinion of Watson, I am not surprised. It was his argument, after all.
Don't forget that the word "Jesus" would have been on the face of the moon since the time when man runneth not. Of COURSE a self-proclaimed prophet would take that as his name. They all would.
This is the crux of the matter in all these threads.
I addressed it earlier.
Why is ID non-scientific?
Is it falsifyable?
Salient question, yes.
I don't know the answer.
The same applies to evolution as well. Is it falsifiable?
I am not sure how it is. What observation or experiment could be done to disporve evolution?
Of course. E.g. by discovering in one place fossils of organisms that should not have been there according to evolution's predictions.
Find a chimera. (You know, the old "the platypus disproves evolution" argument.)
Find fossil strata with the layers "out of order" with respect to orderings elsewhere. (You know, the old "human and dinosaur tracks together disprove evolution" argument.)
Discover and demonstrate a method of natural speciation that does not depend upon natural selection.
Just cleaning up loose ends.
The link you cite in 192 does not say proteins in fact can arise as the result of unaided, undirected chemical interactions from less-complex precursors or even indicate or imply that.
Off the top of my head? If I were to repeat Mendel's sweet pea experiments and grow a family of aardvarks.
1. An examination of DNA might reveal that gibbons share more in common with fir trees than fruit bats. That would be quite a problem... OR:
2. Fossils of dinosaurs in Quaternary sediments, with no other explanation for their arrival.
3. Perfectly preserved human remains dated to 1.2 billion years ago.
Any of those, or a hundred million variations on them, would pose a serious hurdle for evolution.
Ohhhh! Good point. I wonder if I got a tattoo put on my scalp that looks exactly like the face of the man in the moon, then let my hair grow, I wonder if I could rule the world.
You see the sign? His coming was foretold from the beginning of time! He has a mark just like the one on the moon hidden under his hair!
;)
Shalom.
What parts of sections 5-8 about the paths leading to RNA didn't you like?
For those of us who weren't fortunate enough to be eyewitnesses, the record left behind by those who were will have to suffice.
Unless, of course, you know Him now. If He were G-d, He would still be alive, wouldn't he? And He would be able to speak with us if He wanted to, wouldn't He? Then you wouldn't be forced to rely on a book, would you?
Shalom.
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.