ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?)

Jack Crenshaw wrote:

Dan Ensign wrote:

Jack Crenshaw wrote:

Pavil Natanovich wrote:

(dave e) wrote in message news:
.. .
(Pavil Natanovich) wrote in message
. com...

The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule
--
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself
through
random chance?

Self replicating RNA molecules have arisen via natural means in the
lab.

Not that I doubt you, but please cite the reference. I am interested
to know if there were any limitations to this claim (say, only 12
ribonucleotides faithfully replicated, or the like).

Dave

http://www.astrobiology.com/asc2002/....html?ascid=21

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...-peptides.html

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories...rint.cfm?ID=81

I may have mispoken. RNA has been produced, and self replicating RNA
has been produced, but we apparently have not quite bridged the gap
between these yet. Of course, even then, there is still a very long
way to go from RNA to cellular organisms, and from single celled
organisms to multicelled creatures.

RNA has been "produced" in the same way that Miniature Schnauzers have
been produced.

Start with two Miniature Schnauzers.

What? When has anyone produced an RNA from copying two other RNAs?
What are you talking about? Wouldn't the production of RNA from other
RNAs be exactly what origin-of-life researchers are looking for?


No, not at all. If one can contrive an environment in which RNA can
reproduce itself,
the most you can say is that you've got a chemical version of a Xerox
machine.

Which is quite like prokaryotes reproducing themselves. Some people
think this is enough for evolution to begin--if the RNA can be an
appropriate imperfect replicator.

My thought is that if such a situation can be contrived in the lab, then
perhaps we could use the evolution of self-replicating RNA to create
new, useful organic chemicals, or ribozymes with useful functions.

I *don't* think this is how life got started--not with just one
self-replicating RNA, in any case.

The issue -- at least, I _THOUGHT_ it was the issue -- is how does that
RNA get started
in the first place? Start with the Urey-Miller experiment, and have
self-reproducing
RNA could out the other end. _THEN_ I'll be impressed.

Nucleotide bases have been detected in Urey-Miller-like experiments; all
you'd have to do is get them on phosphoribose, organize them into
polymers, and if you're lucky enough to get the right polymer, then
(assuming such a thing exists) you could have a self-replicating RNA.
'Twould impress me, too.

--
Dan Ensign
"Never trust the man in the blue trenchcoat,
never drive a car when you're dead."
--Tom Waits, "Telephone Call from Istanbul"

Hiero5ant wrote:

"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...
How would you pose the question in such a way that the answer is _NOT_
bunk?

First, I would start by not top-posting. It's incredibly annoying.


I see. Thank you for that enlightenment. I see that you prefer
middle-posting.

Second, it's *their* argument that is based on false assumptions and
gibberish questions, not mine.

So you said. I was asking you to enlighten us further by raising the
level of discourse. Words like "bunk," "gibberish," and "false
assumptions" don't usually serve to do that.

Third, if you're asking, "what would be a cogent inquiry into the
mechanisms of abiogenesis", then I would have to refer you to ther primary
literature, lists of which have recently been given by Lilith and Wilkins.

Which means, being interpreted, that you have nothing really useful to
add to the conversation, right?

Fourth and finally, I would advise them to ask questions along the
lines of "what happened, when, and in what chemical and environmental
conditions, and with what mechanisms, and where can we see those mechanisms
operating today, and what evidence would these mechanisms and conditions
tend to leave behind." Evolution-deniers don't ask these questions, because
they're not interested in the answers to them. They are interested *only* in
posing "stumper" questions that allow them to wave their hands long enough
to say "goddidit" or the equivalent.

Are we still talking about Hoyle and Wickramasinghe? I think Fred
Hoyle, were he still alive, would be somewhat surprised, to say the
least, to hear himself quoted as saying "godditit." Or "the
equivalent," whatever that is.

You know, for a time there, I was beginning to think that TO had
changed, and had become a kinder, gentler place. Thank you for
reminding me what it's really like. Most of the lurkers seem to be more
like you: Not interested (or not equipped) to engage in serious
discussion or inquiry; more interested in lobbing drive-by grenades.

Jack


Hiero5ant wrote:

"Ross Langerak" wrote in message
news
"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...


Ross Langerak wrote:

snip

Second, producing an organism that uses 2000 enzymes does not
require
that all 2000 enzymes come into existence at the same time. The
first
species to use enzymes probably started with one. Assuming that
enzyme worked, they could have added another, experimenting with
different enzymes until they found another that worked. Do this
1998
more times and you have 2000 enzymes.

There you go again. In discussing how life got started on Earth,
you
persist in
starting with the assumption that life is already _THERE_. Can you
not
see the
fallacy in this?

Not only that, but you assume that "they" are actively working, with
a
specific
goal in mind, "experimenting" with things until they find something
that
"works"
(implying an intelligence with a payoff function, and able to rate
every
product
against the goal).

That is so far removed from standard concepts of Darwinian evolution
that I hardly
know where to begin to answer it.

The argument presented by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe assumed that the
first organism would require 2000 enzymes, each requiring 200
residues. They then calculated the odds against this happening by
chance. They did NOT discuss HOW life might have originated (at least
not as presented at the beginning of this discussion).

I pointed out four problems with their assumptions. First, I pointed
out that current research into the origin of life suggests that the
first self-replicating organism was probably a simple RNA molecule.
No enzymes required. So Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were arguing against
a strawman, not an actual origin of life proposal made by real
biologists. I did not get into how this might have happened, as that
was not the subject of the discussion.

Second, I pointed out that, to get 2000 enzymes, it is much easier to
start with one enzyme and add one at a time until you reach 2000.
Though this assumes an organism with one enzyme, it demonstrates
another way that Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's assumptions are not valid.

Third, I pointed out that that the odds against getting 2000 enzymes
at the same time are not nearly as bad as Hoyle and Wickramasinghe
suggested, as there are many ways to produce the same set of enzymes.
A lot of variation in the residues is allowed while still retaining
the function of the enzyme.

Fourth, I pointed out that we really don't have a complete theory on
how life originated. This being the case, how can Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe calculate the odds against it? It's a bit like trying
to calculate the point spread in a football game when you don't know
who is going to be playing.

I don't think this analogy gets anywhere close to expressing what's
wrong with evolution-deniers' "it's just too improbable" calculations.
The way I've taken to describing it is by asking persons who put
forward nonarguments like this: "I have a bag; what are the odds that I
will
pull a white marble out of it?". If they can understand why that is an
unanswerable question, they can understand why Dembski is bunk.

Now, we can talk about how life may have originated, but that was not
the subject of this discussion. Either defend Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe's assumptions, or move on.

"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...


Hiero5ant wrote:

"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...
How would you pose the question in such a way that the answer is _NOT_
bunk?

First, I would start by not top-posting. It's incredibly annoying.


I see. Thank you for that enlightenment. I see that you prefer
middle-posting.

You're welcome.

Second, it's *their* argument that is based on false assumptions
and
gibberish questions, not mine.

So you said. I was asking you to enlighten us further by raising the
level of discourse. Words like "bunk," "gibberish," and "false
assumptions" don't usually serve to do that.

Enlighten me. What are more neutral terms for "gibberish" and "false"
that accurately decribe questions that are gibberish and assumptions that
are false? Would you take exception to "nonsense" and "baseless"? How about
"gobbledegook" and "hopelessly inaccurate"? Hand me the eggshells, and I'll
gladly walk on them.

Third, if you're asking, "what would be a cogent inquiry into the
mechanisms of abiogenesis", then I would have to refer you to ther
primary
literature, lists of which have recently been given by Lilith and
Wilkins.

Which means, being interpreted, that you have nothing really useful to
add to the conversation, right?

"I have a bag; what are the odds that I will pull a white marble out of
it?"
When one top-posts, one tends to miss relevant statements of one's
interlocutor like this.

Fourth and finally, I would advise them to ask questions along the
lines of "what happened, when, and in what chemical and environmental
conditions, and with what mechanisms, and where can we see those
mechanisms
operating today, and what evidence would these mechanisms and conditions
tend to leave behind." Evolution-deniers don't ask these questions,
because
they're not interested in the answers to them. They are interested
*only* in
posing "stumper" questions that allow them to wave their hands long
enough
to say "goddidit" or the equivalent.

Are we still talking about Hoyle and Wickramasinghe? I think Fred
Hoyle, were he still alive, would be somewhat surprised, to say the
least, to hear himself quoted as saying "godditit." Or "the
equivalent," whatever that is.

But they can be, and have been repeatedly, so invoked.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-138.htm
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whatsay.htm
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...y_Improba.html
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/tellme04.htm
http://tinyurl.com/tccn

You know, for a time there, I was beginning to think that TO had
changed, and had become a kinder, gentler place. Thank you for
reminding me what it's really like. Most of the lurkers seem to be more
like you: Not interested (or not equipped) to engage in serious
discussion or inquiry; more interested in lobbing drive-by grenades.

"I have a bag; what are the odds that I will pull a white marble out of
it?"

HTH. HAND.


Hiero5ant wrote:

"Ross Langerak" wrote in message
news
"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...


Ross Langerak wrote:

snip

Second, producing an organism that uses 2000 enzymes does not
require
that all 2000 enzymes come into existence at the same time.
The
first
species to use enzymes probably started with one. Assuming
that
enzyme worked, they could have added another, experimenting wi
th
different enzymes until they found another that worked. Do
this
1998
more times and you have 2000 enzymes.

There you go again. In discussing how life got started on
Earth,
you
persist in
starting with the assumption that life is already _THERE_. Can
you
not
see the
fallacy in this?

Not only that, but you assume that "they" are actively working,
with
a
specific
goal in mind, "experimenting" with things until they find
something
that
"works"
(implying an intelligence with a payoff function, and able to
rate
every
product
against the goal).

That is so far removed from standard concepts of Darwinian
evolution
that I hardly
know where to begin to answer it.

The argument presented by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe assumed that
the
first organism would require 2000 enzymes, each requiring 200
residues. They then calculated the odds against this happening by
chance. They did NOT discuss HOW life might have originated (at
least
not as presented at the beginning of this discussion).

I pointed out four problems with their assumptions. First, I
pointed
out that current research into the origin of life suggests that
the
first self-replicating organism was probably a simple RNA
molecule.
No enzymes required. So Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were arguing
against
a strawman, not an actual origin of life proposal made by real
biologists. I did not get into how this might have happened, as
that
was not the subject of the discussion.

Second, I pointed out that, to get 2000 enzymes, it is much easier
to
start with one enzyme and add one at a time until you reach 2000.
Though this assumes an organism with one enzyme, it demonstrates
another way that Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's assumptions are not
valid.

Third, I pointed out that that the odds against getting 2000
enzymes
at the same time are not nearly as bad as Hoyle and Wickramasinghe
suggested, as there are many ways to produce the same set of
enzymes.
A lot of variation in the residues is allowed while still
retaining
the function of the enzyme.

Fourth, I pointed out that we really don't have a complete theory
on
how life originated. This being the case, how can Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe calculate the odds against it? It's a bit like
trying
to calculate the point spread in a football game when you don't
know
who is going to be playing.

I don't think this analogy gets anywhere close to expressing
what's
wrong with evolution-deniers' "it's just too improbable"
calculations.
The way I've taken to describing it is by asking persons who
put
forward nonarguments like this: "I have a bag; what are the odds
that I
will
pull a white marble out of it?". If they can understand why that is
an
unanswerable question, they can understand why Dembski is bunk.

Now, we can talk about how life may have originated, but that was
not
the subject of this discussion. Either defend Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe's assumptions, or move on.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:31:53 +0000 (UTC),
(Dan Ensign) scribed these
bits:

Pavil Natanovich wrote:

(dave e) wrote in message news:

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories...rint.cfm?ID=81

This refers to a paper about what might be self-replicating RNA, but I
had to dig the real article citation out:

***
RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: Accurate and general RNA-templated
primer extension
Johnston WK, Unrau PJ, Lawrence MS, Glasner ME, Bartel DP
SCIENCE
292 (5520): 1319-1325 MAY 18 2001

Abstract:
The RNA world hypothesis regarding the early evolution of Life relies on
the premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication. In
support of this conjecture, we describe here an RNA molecule that
catalyzes the type of polymerization needed for RNA replication. The
ribozyme uses nucleoside triphosphates and the coding information of an
RNA template to extend an RNA primer by the successive addition of up to
14 nucleotides-more than a complete turn of an RNA helix. Its
polymerization activity is general in terms of the sequence and the
Length of the primer and template RNAs, provided that the 3' terminus of
the primer pairs with the template. Its polymerization is also quite
accurate: when primers extended by 11 nucleotides were cloned and
sequenced, 1088 of 1100 sequenced nucleotides matched the template.
***

I'll look at the paper itself later, 'cause it looks either really neat
or a load of poorly written crap (what is "Its polymerization activity
is general in terms of the sequence"? Does that mean that the nascent
polymer is *not* templated on the parent RNA? Or can these people just
not write clear Inglish sentences?)

This sentence "Its polymerization activity
is general in terms of the sequence" means that it can copy any
sequence of bases. It does not have an arbitrary restriction on what
it can copy.
X X
X
X X

(Dan Ensign) scribed these
bits:

Or can these people just
not write clear Inglish sentences?)


Please.
Keep this in alt.conspiracy
and delete the sci.* newsgroups
from your posts.
Please.

in article , JB Lillie at
wrote on 11/20/03 12:11 PM:


(Dan Ensign) scribed these
bits:

Or can these people just
not write clear Inglish sentences?)


Please.
Keep this in alt.conspiracy
and delete the sci.* newsgroups
from your posts.
Please.

It helps if you only respond in the groups where you want the posts seen,
like this.

"Ethan Rogati" wrote in message
...


It helps if you only respond in the groups where you want the posts seen,
like this.


But if we do not post in the idiot's newsgroup, then when will they notice
the excessive crossposts? When there are several newsgroups in the header,
can you promise me which ONE several posters are all using?

That is why I try "1" crosspost.
If it keeps up, I killfile.