In article
<eeb5ec69-977d-44ca-8217-3a765c3514bb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
"IlBeBauck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBauck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> On May 2, 9:02=A0pm, c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article
<5aa53b76-ccb0-4f42-8265-2e082ba6b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com> "IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 2, 1:15=3DA0pm, c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Cary Kittrell)
wrote:
> > > > In article
<9b8fa6e7-dca9-4acb-af5a-d5d225a5a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> s.co=3D
> > > m> "IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >
> > > > > On May 1, 4:49=3D3DA0pm, Budikka666 <budik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > > > > > Grrl Scientist
atwww.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientisthttp://tinyurl.=
> com/=3D
> > > 5la6=3D3D
> > > > > lh
> > > > > > re****ts on: "five male and five female Italian wall lizards,
Podar=
> cis
> > > > > > sicula, were translocated from the islet of Pod Kopiste to the
nea=
> rby
> > > > > > islet of Pod Mrcaru, both of which belong to Croatia and are
locat=
> ed
> > > > > > in the southern Adriatic Sea"
> >
> > > > > > War erupted and scientists never got back to see the lizards
until=
>
> > > > > > relatively recently. =3D3DA0What they found was an amazing
example=
> of ju=3D
> > > st
> > > > > > how fast evolution can work its wiley ways.
> >
> > > > > > Footnote to idiot creationists: Yeah, they're still lizards,
and n=
> o,
> > > > > > no scientist has ever claimed they're not. =3D3DA0But what
you're =
> too st=3D
> > > upid
> > > > > > to grasp no matter how many times you're hit over your stupid
head=
> s
> > > > > > with it, evolution isn't just about speciation (which leads to
> > > > > > everything else) and nothing more. =3D3DA0Evolution is about
chang=
> e with=3D
> > > in aas=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > gene pool. =3D3DA0That's what it's rooted in and that's how it
wor=
> ks its=3D
> > > ion
> > > > > > magic.
> >
> > > > > > It really is that simple. =3D3DA0And if you cannot grasp this
basi=
> c,
> > > > > > demonstrated fact, then you too are really simple.
> >
> > > > > > Budikka
> >
> > > > > REPLY: =3DA0By what mechanism or evolutionary process does new
infor=
> mation=3D
> >
> > > > > become a part of the genome (which is needed for Darwinnian
Evolutio=
> n
> > > > > to be viable) ?
> >
> > > > Overall? =3DA0Multiple copies of a coding gene, followed by
mutation o=
> f
> > > > one of the copies. =3DA0The organism now produces two different
> > > > proteins, the original and a new variant.
> >
> > > > In a given organism? =3DA0Acquisition of genes from other species,
> > > > most commonly via viruses.
> >
> > > > Not to metion that after a certain level of complexity is
> > > > reuiached, new information is no longer necessary. =3DA0It's
> > > > not new genes any longer, it's different switch settings
> > > > (sed "evo-devo");
> >
> > > > REPLY: =A0That is quite remarkable indeed. =A0Has any scientist(s)
=A0=
> calculated=3D
> > > =A0the chances that new life forms came about by this mutated
process ? =
> =A0 than=3D
> > > ks.
> >
> > By any single event of this type? =A0I'm not sure.
> >
> > By accumulations of these changes? =A0Well, that's what evolution
> > is all about.
> >
> > Incidentally, I don't know if you'd consider this "new information" or
> > not, but I can think of an example where repeated copies of a single
gene
> > seem related to fitness: =A0it's been found recently that humans
> > living in cultures which eat a lot of starch have more copies of
> > the gene which produces the starch-digesting enzyme amalyze.
> >
> > Multiple copies can be bad too, as in Huntington's chorea or
> > fragile-X syndrome.
> >
> > -- cary- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> REPLY: Well, lets see what staunch atheist / co-discoverer of the
> DNA structure , Dr. Francis Crick, has to say on the mathematical
> probability that life formed in this way by accident. (and before I
> do, just let me say : 'Case closed !' ....based on the worlds foremost
> leading Biologist ,and atheist at that) . So, could you tell us what
> your personal ulterior motive would be for rejecting God ?
> Thanks. :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ----
>
> Mathematical Probabilities
>
> The next stop would be to delve into the mathematical probabilities
> that vastly complex organs such as the brain, the eyes, etc., could
> have developed by themselves. But before we begin, I'd like you to be
> able to fathom what the numbers that we will be giving you represent.
> It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be
> 1018 seconds. Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there
> are only 1080 electrons (that's a 1 with 80 zeros after it). So I
> guess we would agree that 10100 is a number that's pretty much
> impossible for us to truly comprehend. With this introduction,
> hopefully we'll be able to properly appreciate the upcoming
> quotations.
Is this intentionally dishonest, or merely ignorance on your
part? This is NOT a quote from Crick, but was written by
the Rabbi Shmuel Waldman in his book "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:
Convincing Evidence of the Truths of Judaism". From this
point he DOES go on to quote Crick, but this quote is not
from Crick.
>
> Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in
> chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures
> and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living
> organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."(1) That's right -
> zero!
Is this intentionally dishonest, or merely ignorance on your
part?
This is taken from the lead-in to a two-part article in Physics Today, in
which Prigogine (and two other authors) -- after setting up the above
question -- go on to answer it by demonstrating, using the
far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics for which Prigogine got
his Nobel, that life spontaneously self-organizing is not
only possible, it is probable.
If you'd like a popularized description of this, I'll suggest
Prigogine's book on dissapative systems, "Self-Organization in
Nonequilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order
through Fluctuations"
And by the way, Prigogine did not win two Nobel prizes, he
won one, in 1977, for this very work. Are you thinking
of Linus Pauling?
>
> Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of
> DNA, wrote:
>
> An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
> only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
> moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would
> have had to have been satisfied to get it going.(2)
>
> The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
> chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in
> (1020)2,000=3D1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not
> be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.(3)
>
> In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared
> with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of
> about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out
> between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibers by
> which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain.
> Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain
> approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order
> of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an
> area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered
> in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile.
> If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of
> leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of
> connections in the human brain! Despite the enormity of the number of
> connections, the ramifying forest of fibers is not a chaotic random
> tangle but a highly organized network in which a high pro****tion of
> the fibers are unique adaptive communication channels following their
> own specially ordained pathway through the brain. Even if only one
> hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized,
> this would still represent a system containing a much greater number
> of specific connections than in the entire communications network on
> Earth.(4)
Finally, an honest quote. This is from Crick and Orgel's book
"Life Itself" (incidentally, the web page you lifted all this
from attributes the quote to another book entirely, "Evolution:
a theory in crisis", which was written by someone else entirely)
So from this point Crick and Orgel go on to suggest that life on
earth arose via "Directed Panspermia" -- in other words, Earth
was intentionally seeded with life by a technologically advanced
alien civilization (from a molybdenum-deficient planet, interestingly
enough).
So, does that convince you? Since you think that Crick is (was)
"the worlds foremost leading Biologist", then you are satisified
that what he says must be true, and that we are all descended
from automated alien space probes?
-- cary
|
