home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!gatech!nscf!lakes!kalki33!system
- From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
- Newsgroups: talk.origins
- Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
- Message-ID: <RwJFuB9w165w@kalki33>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:20:26 EST
- References: <98045@netnews.upenn.edu>
- Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
- Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA
- Lines: 63
-
- rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
-
- > >"Mass" is not a substance either, but a quantitative measurement of a
- > >physical system. We have conservation of mass, and we have conservation
- > >of information. What is the difficulty?
- >
- > I'm going to leave this to others more capable in this area, but in
- > short the difficulty is that you don't know what you're talking about.
- > I'll try to give you one thing to chew on, though... We once had
- > another creationist here (Jim Brown, perhaps ?) who felt that the
- > genome of any animal that contained a mutation which caused said
- > animal to look or act in an abnormal fashion had less information than
- > the genome of an animal without that mutation. By any useful
- > understanding of what the word "information" might mean, this is
- > false, but I suspect that you would have agreed with that other
- > individual. Am I correct? (i.e. do you think that any mutation that
- > makes say, a dog less dog-like constitutes a reduction of information
- > in some absolute sense?)
-
- Huh?
-
- > >> >In spite of the fact that the laws of physics are very simple, and in
- > >> >spite of the fact that scientists can not even begin to precisely
- > >> >specify any set of initial conditions for the origin of life,
- > >> >nevertheless, simply because they want to believe it, they claim that
- > >> >"in principle" there is such a set of initial conditions that will turn
- > >> >lifeless matter into living organisms in a certain period of time.
- > >>
- > >> Please point to two scientists that claim this and please include
- > >> documentation that the claim is made for the reason you cite, or
- > >> retract your strawman. A failure on your part to do either will gain
- > >> me a lot of credit on the talk.origins home game...
- > >
- > >James Watson in The Molecular Biology of the Gene, p. 54, which was
- > >quoted in another post.
- >
- > Although Watson in a typical fit of hubris claimed absolute certainty
- > that current life can be explained entirely by physical chemistry, he
- > did not address abiogenesis in the quotes you posted. Furthermore
- > there was nothing in the posted quote which indicated that Watson's
- > hubris came about because he "wanted to believe" what he said.
-
- I beg your pardon. I thought that hubris was not a valid scientific
- method. I also thought that one of the supposed properties of life is
- that it arose through abiogenesis.
-
- Or maybe abiogenesis is one of the properties of life. In that case
- Watson's statement, which was made about ALL the properties of life,
- certainly counts as referring to abiogenesis.
-
- Sincerely,
- Kalki Dasa
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------
- | Don't forget to chant: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna |
- | Krishna Krishna Hare Hare |
- | Hare Rama Hare Rama |
- | Rama Rama Hare Hare |
- | |
- | Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA |
- | (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us) |
- -------------------------------------------------------
-