Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cracker
"More importantly, the claim was that such "data" cannot arise spontaneously."

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.

195 posted on 03/07/2002 10:04:23 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies ]


To: Southack
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.

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.

197 posted on 03/07/2002 10:16:30 AM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson