1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Yale professor’s thoughts on Darwinism

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
08 August 2019 14:42
 

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17790
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 August 2019 18:10
 

Bullshit.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15914
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 August 2019 21:42
 
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17790
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 August 2019 21:59
 
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

It’s even simpler then that. They take the only theory that has any evidence behind it, make a god of the gaps argument using complexity, then claim ID (god or other)which would be the highest complexity as the answer (without any evidence behind it) to the complexity they just fucking said couldn’t happen.

As I said, BULLSHIT!

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
08 August 2019 23:11
 
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
08 August 2019 23:12
 
GAD - 08 August 2019 09:59 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

It’s even simpler then that. They take the only theory that has any evidence behind it, make a god of the gaps argument using complexity, then claim ID (god or other)which would be the highest complexity as the answer (without any evidence behind it) to the complexity they just fucking said couldn’t happen.

As I said, BULLSHIT!

I’m not sure what the specific issue is that you find with the author’s reasoning.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
09 August 2019 09:54
 
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 11:11 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

He gets them wrong.
It’s a good thing he is a comp sci prof, because he misrepresents (or mis-understands) the statistical portion of his post.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
09 August 2019 10:24
 
Jefe - 09 August 2019 09:54 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 11:11 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

He gets them wrong.
It’s a good thing he is a comp sci prof, because he misrepresents (or mis-understands) the statistical portion of his post.

What parts of what he said are incorrect?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
09 August 2019 10:42
 
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 10:24 AM
Jefe - 09 August 2019 09:54 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 11:11 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

He gets them wrong.
It’s a good thing he is a comp sci prof, because he misrepresents (or mis-understands) the statistical portion of his post.

What parts of what he said are incorrect?

The whole sequence about probability is wrong.
He misunderstands (or misrepresents) how probability works to make it sound astronomically more difficult for molecules to have developed.  It either demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the probabilities work, or an intentional misrepresentation of how probabilities works - so as to appeal to the ID/Creationist bias, and to sound sciency/mathy enough (to folks who also don’t understand statistics and probability) to hold a ring of truthiness(tm). Further, the line of examination fails to take into account the environment under which these transformations took place, and also fails to account for the non-random effects of chemistry and biochemistry on the nascent molecules themselves.

That line of ‘argument’ has been thoroughly debunked.  (Yet remains a corner-stone of ID argumentation…)

 

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
09 August 2019 11:20
 
Jefe - 09 August 2019 10:42 AM
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 10:24 AM
Jefe - 09 August 2019 09:54 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 11:11 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

He gets them wrong.
It’s a good thing he is a comp sci prof, because he misrepresents (or mis-understands) the statistical portion of his post.

What parts of what he said are incorrect?

The whole sequence about probability is wrong.
He misunderstands (or misrepresents) how probability works to make it sound astronomically more difficult for molecules to have developed.  It either demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the probabilities work, or an intentional misrepresentation of how probabilities works - so as to appeal to the ID/Creationist bias, and to sound sciency/mathy enough (to folks who also don’t understand statistics and probability) to hold a ring of truthiness(tm). Further, the line of examination fails to take into account the environment under which these transformations took place, and also fails to account for the non-random effects of chemistry and biochemistry on the nascent molecules themselves.

That line of ‘argument’ has been thoroughly debunked.  (Yet remains a corner-stone of ID argumentation…)

What is he misunderstanding about probability that makes his sequence incorrect?

How would the environment affect the transformations that you refer to?

What non-random effects are you referring to?  When you say that biochemistry had an effect on the new molecules, are you implying that life existed before the molecules, or as they formed?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
09 August 2019 11:31
 
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 11:20 AM
Jefe - 09 August 2019 10:42 AM
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 10:24 AM
Jefe - 09 August 2019 09:54 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 11:11 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

He gets them wrong.
It’s a good thing he is a comp sci prof, because he misrepresents (or mis-understands) the statistical portion of his post.

What parts of what he said are incorrect?

The whole sequence about probability is wrong.
He misunderstands (or misrepresents) how probability works to make it sound astronomically more difficult for molecules to have developed.  It either demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the probabilities work, or an intentional misrepresentation of how probabilities works - so as to appeal to the ID/Creationist bias, and to sound sciency/mathy enough (to folks who also don’t understand statistics and probability) to hold a ring of truthiness(tm). Further, the line of examination fails to take into account the environment under which these transformations took place, and also fails to account for the non-random effects of chemistry and biochemistry on the nascent molecules themselves.

That line of ‘argument’ has been thoroughly debunked.  (Yet remains a corner-stone of ID argumentation…)

What is he misunderstanding about probability that makes his sequence incorrect?

How would the environment affect the transformations that you refer to?

What non-random effects are you referring to?  When you say that biochemistry had an effect on the new molecules, are you implying that life existed before the molecules, or as they formed?

As I’ve pointed out in the past, I’m not here to do your research for you.
I’m simply commenting on the pro-ID article you posted and identifying the misunderstandings/misrepresentations within.  If you are honestly interested in learning these things, the information is out there for you to find. If you are serious about learning the answers to these questions, you can do so on your own recognizance.  If you are simply looking for an ‘aha or gotcha moment’ in a discussion on an online forum, I have no interest.

I recommend you start by googling ‘The Wedge Document’ and “Cdesign proponentists” to get you started with the ID debunking.  From there, there are entire fields of study surrounding these ID/Creationist data-bytes you bring here for discussion. If you are intent on learning more about them, I suggest research from an un-biased perspective. 

Happy learning.

 

Edit: Here’s a simplified example of why the probabilities in that article don’t apply:


If you toss 4 coins, what are the chances of getting 4 ‘heads’ tosses in a row?
1:16.  That does not, however, mean you will always have to toss coins 16 times to get a 4-heads result.  One might get that toss on the very first try, or the very last try, or one of any of the 14 tries in-between.  If you perform the experiment multiple times and achieve a 4-heads result on the following tries respectively:  2, 8, 11, 7, 5, 12, etc…  that means that extending the longest possible periodicity to the exepriment is demonstrably the incorrect approach.  (This incorrect approach is used in your referenced essay.)
On average it might take ?2 mins? to get a 4-heads result.
What if you got a friend to toss coins along with you?  The possibility of getting a 4-heads result between you remains the same, but the average time it would take to do so reduces based on the number of tosses possible by two people.  So now we’re down to ?1 mins? average to achieve a 4-heads result.
What if you had 16 friends tossing coins at the same time?  The probability of achieving a 4-heads result remains the same, but the time required to achieve it reduces again, simply because you have more people tossing coins at the same time.
Now we’re ?>1 min? to achieve a 4-heads result. 

Thus while it remains a 1:16 chance of tossing coins the environment affects how long it takes to achieve that toss based on the number of tosses being made at any given time.

Apply that to the molecular assembly model used in your referenced essay.

Watch this fun little video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwD98HiQSJc

Also, if the equations are applied as a single linear chain, a single ongoing trial, or coin-tosser, as it were, it does seem improbable that molecules could assemble in a specified fashion.  BUT - how many molecular transitions are taking place at any given moment?  And how does that number affect the time required to achieve a specified transformation?  If there are billions (or billions and billions, or more) of molecules ‘tossing coins’ at the same time, that significantly reduces the implied period to achieve a ‘4-heads’ result.

One should probably have a serious grounding in probability modelling before trying to use in an argument.

As for the chemistry/bio-chemistry question, I leave that up to you to research.  Suffice it to say that these non-random factors also influence the fallacious long-chain-probability-claim used in your referenced essay.

[ Edited: 09 August 2019 12:04 by Jefe]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
09 August 2019 13:25
 
Jefe - 09 August 2019 11:31 AM
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 11:20 AM
Jefe - 09 August 2019 10:42 AM
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 10:24 AM
Jefe - 09 August 2019 09:54 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 11:11 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

He gets them wrong.
It’s a good thing he is a comp sci prof, because he misrepresents (or mis-understands) the statistical portion of his post.

What parts of what he said are incorrect?

The whole sequence about probability is wrong.
He misunderstands (or misrepresents) how probability works to make it sound astronomically more difficult for molecules to have developed.  It either demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the probabilities work, or an intentional misrepresentation of how probabilities works - so as to appeal to the ID/Creationist bias, and to sound sciency/mathy enough (to folks who also don’t understand statistics and probability) to hold a ring of truthiness(tm). Further, the line of examination fails to take into account the environment under which these transformations took place, and also fails to account for the non-random effects of chemistry and biochemistry on the nascent molecules themselves.

That line of ‘argument’ has been thoroughly debunked.  (Yet remains a corner-stone of ID argumentation…)

What is he misunderstanding about probability that makes his sequence incorrect?

How would the environment affect the transformations that you refer to?

What non-random effects are you referring to?  When you say that biochemistry had an effect on the new molecules, are you implying that life existed before the molecules, or as they formed?

As I’ve pointed out in the past, I’m not here to do your research for you.
I’m simply commenting on the pro-ID article you posted and identifying the misunderstandings/misrepresentations within.  If you are honestly interested in learning these things, the information is out there for you to find. If you are serious about learning the answers to these questions, you can do so on your own recognizance.  If you are simply looking for an ‘aha or gotcha moment’ in a discussion on an online forum, I have no interest.

I recommend you start by googling ‘The Wedge Document’ and “Cdesign proponentists” to get you started with the ID debunking.  From there, there are entire fields of study surrounding these ID/Creationist data-bytes you bring here for discussion. If you are intent on learning more about them, I suggest research from an un-biased perspective. 

Happy learning.

 

Edit: Here’s a simplified example of why the probabilities in that article don’t apply:


If you toss 4 coins, what are the chances of getting 4 ‘heads’ tosses in a row?
1:16.  That does not, however, mean you will always have to toss coins 16 times to get a 4-heads result.  One might get that toss on the very first try, or the very last try, or one of any of the 14 tries in-between.  If you perform the experiment multiple times and achieve a 4-heads result on the following tries respectively:  2, 8, 11, 7, 5, 12, etc…  that means that extending the longest possible periodicity to the exepriment is demonstrably the incorrect approach.  (This incorrect approach is used in your referenced essay.)
On average it might take ?2 mins? to get a 4-heads result.
What if you got a friend to toss coins along with you?  The possibility of getting a 4-heads result between you remains the same, but the average time it would take to do so reduces based on the number of tosses possible by two people.  So now we’re down to ?1 mins? average to achieve a 4-heads result.
What if you had 16 friends tossing coins at the same time?  The probability of achieving a 4-heads result remains the same, but the time required to achieve it reduces again, simply because you have more people tossing coins at the same time.
Now we’re ?>1 min? to achieve a 4-heads result. 

Thus while it remains a 1:16 chance of tossing coins the environment affects how long it takes to achieve that toss based on the number of tosses being made at any given time.

Apply that to the molecular assembly model used in your referenced essay.

Watch this fun little video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwD98HiQSJc

Also, if the equations are applied as a single linear chain, a single ongoing trial, or coin-tosser, as it were, it does seem improbable that molecules could assemble in a specified fashion.  BUT - how many molecular transitions are taking place at any given moment?  And how does that number affect the time required to achieve a specified transformation?  If there are billions (or billions and billions, or more) of molecules ‘tossing coins’ at the same time, that significantly reduces the implied period to achieve a ‘4-heads’ result.

One should probably have a serious grounding in probability modelling before trying to use in an argument.

As for the chemistry/bio-chemistry question, I leave that up to you to research.  Suffice it to say that these non-random factors also influence the fallacious long-chain-probability-claim used in your referenced essay.

If you make a claim, then I am logically free to ask you about your reasoning.  I am not the one who has made a claim here, so I don’t have the burden of proof.  You seem ready to attack my motivations and level of knowledge on a moment’s notice.  Why not address the subject at-hand instead?

“(Apply that to the molecular assembly model used in your referenced essay.)”  Is there a 50-50 chance that molecular changes will result in benefit or detriment?  How exactly would you apply your own example?

“As for the chemistry/bio-chemistry question, I leave that up to you to research.”  It was a question for you, since you brought it up.  I don’t understand at what point you would call the molecular changes biochemistry.  We are talking about the very processes that are hypothesized to have created life.  You cannot simultaneously argue that life did not exist yet, and that life helped the equation.  Life would have been pulling itself up with its bootstraps in that scenario.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
09 August 2019 13:46
 
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 01:25 PM

If you make a claim, then I am logically free to ask you about your reasoning.  I am not the one who has made a claim here, so I don’t have the burden of proof.  You seem ready to attack my motivations and level of knowledge on a moment’s notice.  Why not address the subject at-hand instead?

What attack was made on your motiviations?
I believe I addressed the fallacious nature of the claims made in your linked essay.
However, you are making a defacto claim by presenting the essay for discussion.
You claimed interest in discussion about that essay.  Herein lies that discussion.

TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 01:25 PM

“(Apply that to the molecular assembly model used in your referenced essay.)”  Is there a 50-50 chance that molecular changes will result in benefit or detriment?  How exactly would you apply your own example?

There are 3 different potential results:  benefit/detriment/neutral  
Is the probability of any single change (out of many) being one of these three relevant?  We know that change happens.  We know that some of each kind happen.  If we project that into the volume of changes, we know that lots of each are happening.

TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 01:25 PM

“As for the chemistry/bio-chemistry question, I leave that up to you to research.”  It was a question for you, since you brought it up.  I don’t understand at what point you would call the molecular changes biochemistry.  We are talking about the very processes that are hypothesized to have created life.  You cannot simultaneously argue that life did not exist yet, and that life helped the equation.  Life would have been pulling itself up with its bootstraps in that scenario.

biochemistry =/= life.  They are not synonymous.  This is your first mistake.
First, biochemistry is a subset of chemistry.
The subset of biochemistry appropriate to this example is protein science.  It does not require ‘life’ to study, it can be observation of protein and hydrocarbon combinations and permutations within chemical slurries.  The Spiegleman and Urey-Miller experiments were essentially biochemistry without directly involving life.

Further, the U-M experiments successfully produced over 20 proteinogenic substances from non-organic materials, thus demonstrating the study of biochemical substances sourced from non-bio sources.

Additionally, the entire argument about the ‘improbability of protein formation’ is essentially an appeal to incredulity.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
09 August 2019 14:40
 
Jefe - 09 August 2019 01:46 PM
TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 01:25 PM

If you make a claim, then I am logically free to ask you about your reasoning.  I am not the one who has made a claim here, so I don’t have the burden of proof.  You seem ready to attack my motivations and level of knowledge on a moment’s notice.  Why not address the subject at-hand instead?

What attack was made on your motiviations?
I believe I addressed the fallacious nature of the claims made in your linked essay.
However, you are making a defacto claim by presenting the essay for discussion.
You claimed interest in discussion about that essay.  Herein lies that discussion.

TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 01:25 PM

“(Apply that to the molecular assembly model used in your referenced essay.)”  Is there a 50-50 chance that molecular changes will result in benefit or detriment?  How exactly would you apply your own example?

There are 3 different potential results:  benefit/detriment/neutral  
Is the probability of any single change (out of many) being one of these three relevant?  We know that change happens.  We know that some of each kind happen.  If we project that into the volume of changes, we know that lots of each are happening.

TwoSeven1 - 09 August 2019 01:25 PM

“As for the chemistry/bio-chemistry question, I leave that up to you to research.”  It was a question for you, since you brought it up.  I don’t understand at what point you would call the molecular changes biochemistry.  We are talking about the very processes that are hypothesized to have created life.  You cannot simultaneously argue that life did not exist yet, and that life helped the equation.  Life would have been pulling itself up with its bootstraps in that scenario.

biochemistry =/= life.  They are not synonymous.  This is your first mistake.
First, biochemistry is a subset of chemistry.
The subset of biochemistry appropriate to this example is protein science.  It does not require ‘life’ to study, it can be observation of protein and hydrocarbon combinations and permutations within chemical slurries.  The Spiegleman and Urey-Miller experiments were essentially biochemistry without directly involving life.

Further, the U-M experiments successfully produced over 20 proteinogenic substances from non-organic materials, thus demonstrating the study of biochemical substances sourced from non-bio sources.

Additionally, the entire argument about the ‘improbability of protein formation’ is essentially an appeal to incredulity.

“What attack was made on your motiviations?”  Why did you refer to my motivations at all?  Was it a neutral reference?

“There are 3 different potential results:  benefit/detriment/neutral”  Are the chances for each result one-in-three?

“biochemistry =/= life.  They are not synonymous.  This is your first mistake.”  I didn’t say that they are synonymous.

“The subset of biochemistry appropriate to this example is protein science.  It does not require ‘life’ to study, it can be observation of protein and hydrocarbon combinations and permutations within chemical slurries.”  I think there is some confusion between us.  You referred to “nascent” molecules earlier on, so I assumed you were talking about abiogenesis.  The author wasn’t referring to abiogenesis in his argument of probability.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
09 August 2019 17:42
 

“What attack was made on your motiviations?”  Why did you refer to my motivations at all?  Was it a neutral reference?

Let’s be clear - you’re the one who brought up motivations.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15914
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
10 August 2019 16:34
 
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 11:11 PM
burt - 08 August 2019 09:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 August 2019 02:42 PM

I am interested to hear the thoughts of anyone willing to read this whole article.  I was fascinated to hear his perspective, especially since he is a computer science professor at Yale -

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

As soon as he started talking about stuff from the Discovery Institute and supporting ID I know he was a fruitcake. His main claim, that evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of new species is totally false. Back in the late 60s I had a girlfriend who was doing a Ph.D. in genetics setting up computer models of speciation. There are lots of other things going on in evolution in addition to variation and selection, but this guy is bogus.

What do you think about the section where he explains some mathematical concepts?

I’m a mathematician. I have done research on construction of evolutionary models. He doesn’t know what he is talking about, or more accurately, knows just enough to twist things to his agenda, which is not science but religions.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›