Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
Show me an example of that happening or else admit that your claim is an unsubstantiated opinion instead of "science".
No example = Opinion.
When someone bases his arguments on math and calls it a proof, I expect a proof somewhere in there. It may be semantics, but it's pretty serious semantics that show a lack of knowledge.
Yes he has. DNA wants to combine in more and more complex, life creating forms, just as water wants to go downhill.
So your poor friend is maintaining a position that he/she can't support with either evidence (e.g., good DNA self-forming in a chaotic environment) or with math (as this thread demonstrates).
I told you in the beginning I was going with valid argument from authority. I'm sure I can ask him for a point-for-point rebuttal, but I doubt he has the time to properly tear apart this paper. I'm not sure he could do it through the tears of laughter.
You just had a math Ph.D. working in the field of bioengineering indirectly tell you the math is "balony" (spelling; he's not American). Get me another of equivalent authority to challenge please. Do I have to call up some acquaintances at EMBL (European Molecular Biology Laboratory) too? I don't know their individual beliefs, and I'm sure most are religious, but I'm pretty sure what the answers will be.
He says it'll do it easily in a test tube. He suggested reading 'The Molecular Biology of the Cell' by Alberts et al. and said it could be understood by anyone with a good science background.
"He says it'll do it easily in a test tube. He suggested reading 'The Molecular Biology of the Cell' by Alberts et al. and said it could be understood by anyone with a good science background." - Quila
It won't. He's probably confused existing DNA replicating in a test tube with my requirement above, but the difference is enormous. No one doubts that DNA works. What's in doubt is DNA self-forming by pouring acids and bases into a test tube.
BEFORE life existed on this planet, what had to happen in order for DNA to form for the very first time? Your poor academic friend would have us believe that DNA has always been around and can just self-form in a test tube. It hasn't and it can't. It had to FIRST form from unorganized elemental compounds in a chaotic, undirected environment (or else needed Intelligent Intervention).
In math, one doesn't call names to gain credibility. If your friend actually thinks that the math is flawed, then your friend needs to demonstrate with math where the flaw resides.
Your friend will fail.
That's a logically flawed conclusion. A semantic problem does not demonstrate a lack of knowledge, and arguing over semantics certainly doesn't prove such a claim, either.
"Yes he has. DNA wants to combine in more and more complex, life creating forms, just as water wants to go downhill." - Quila
Your "friend" is making an interesting claim that implies he is currently creating Life in the lab (something that would win the Nobel Prize and cause a major worldwide publicity frenzy).
Methinks he's quoting his beliefs, not his lab results...
It's kind of like when Gore was trying to play himself off as this technically savvy guy and was meeting with the Cisco people. He mentioned that one of the important products they make is a (as pronounced) "rooter." I've worked with network people for years and I've never heard it called that. It may have been only semantics (technically, his pronunciation is in the dictionary), but it showed a basic lack of working knowledge on his part of today's networking.
He's just stating what he knows from a cold call, kind of a disinterested referee on the subject.
That's not what the author said. The original scenario that he proposed had data being generated chaoticly. As that data was generated, the author calculated the probability/improbability of 41 characters sequencing in the correct order in any part of that entire data stream. Thus, for the desired result, there is no "historical vaccum" because the entire history of the data is being examined by the math.
As for your comment on "feedback systems", you've got two large hurdles to overcome: First, you have to show that a particular feedback system was in place prior to the very first life form becoming animated, and Second, you've got to demonstrate that such a feedback mechanism could actually change the probability / improbability of useful data self-forming from a chaotic environment.
Frankly, I doubt that either of those two hurdles could be overcome, and even if they were properly managed, would probably not alter the final mathematical result substantially.
Someone also made the flawed comment that the math didn't account for data forming in groups, and then those groups joining with each other, but that too is addressed in the math. To wit: whether you flip four coins at once or one coin at a time, the odds of getting all heads remains precisely the same. So too with data self-forming from a chaotic environment
No, his mispronunciation did not demonstrate a lack of knowledge, per se. I once hired a Russian programmer who, like Gore, mispronounced various technical terms. Had I drawn the illogical conclusion that you drew above, he wouldn't have even been hired, yet he was sharper than many, many technical people in my company.
Then he only managed to demonstrate that his education was wasted. Contrary to your statement, I'm confident in refuting his wild-eyed claim that DNA can easily form from pouring acids and bases into a test tube, and I'm confident in refuting his claim that he has created life from inanimate matter in his lab, too. Whether either of you even realize that those are the ramifications of his claims (because he/you did not use those same words as I just used) is still left to some (though not much) doubt, however.
As for his claim that the math is baloney and has been refuted, I'm confident in ridiculing your friend's ability to mathematically disprove the math of this thread.
And you say he has a Math Ph.d?! Apparently they hand such worthless pieces of paper out to just about anyone these days.
Bring on the math! Either you (or your friend) needs to attack the math in this thread (or run back to whatever University will protect you from the reality of your lack of knowledge).
[Condorman prepares to leap two large hurdles in a single bound.]
The crowd goes quiet, a lone child cries and is quickly hushed.
[Drumroll..........]
Condorman: "I give you, The Periodic Table of Elements!!"
[Cymbal crash, trumpet salute]: Ta-da!
The crowd: Whistle, clap, cheer
Condorman: "Thank you, thank you!"
[alarum, fanfare, exunt]
WHO CARESsheesh
Rubbish. Read the title. The math in this thread is a valid proof of the probability / improbability under discussion.
If you can't even read the title, much less the article, then don't bother posting around here.
Well that's true as far as your example. But let's say that you flip two coins. Then I flip two coins. Then your boss Bob walks up and flips two coins. Then my good friend Gopal and his wife Jennifer each flip two coins.
You now have 5 sets of 2 coin flips. What is the probability that at least two of those sets are both heads-heads and we can link them up to form a chain of 4 coin flips, each of which is heads? You might also like to consider that last week I flipped a pair of heads, and that set is still available for incorporation.
The math in your article cannot account for such an occurence. It assumes not only that the target chain forms AT ONCE with no intermediate steps, but also that each failed trial is discarded immediately. That is incontrovertible, my friend.
Okaaayyyy... Let me know how that turns out for you, then...
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.