dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (08/17/85)
Below are three quotations from the literature. My hypothesis is that they form a lineage, in which one person quoted the original (inaccuratrely), and a third person quoted him (also inaccurately), rather than looking up the original for himself. Your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to reconstruct the lineage. To facilitate comparison, I have juxtaposed corresponding lines of the three passages. Passage 1 consists of all those lines numbered "1", etc., but the numbers indicate nothing about relative chronological order. Which comes first, second, third? How do you know? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for 2 Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for 3 Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for 1 all of its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second 2 all of its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second 3 all its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second 1 machine just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or 2 machine, just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or 3 machine just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or 1 information that should be built into the first machine? The answer 2 information which should be built into the first machine? The answer 3 information that should be built into the first machine? The answer 1 comes out to be of the order of 1500 bits -- 1500 choices between 2 came out to be of the order of 1500 bits -- 1500 choices between 3 comes out to be of the order of 1,500 bits -- 1,500 choices between 1 alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer 2 alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer 3 alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer 1 is very suggestive, because 1500 bits happens to be also of the order of 2 is very suggestive, because 1500 bits happens to be also the order of 3 is very suggestive, because 1,500 bits happens to be also of the order of 1 magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large 2 magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large 3 magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large 1 protein molecule which, immersed in bath of nutrients, can induce the 2 protein molecule which, immersed in bath of nutrients, can induce the 3 protein molecule which, immersed in bath of nutrients, can induce the 1 assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like 2 assembly of these nutrients into another large protein molecule like 3 assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like 1 itself, and then separate itself from it. 2 itself, and then separate itself from it. 3 itself, and then separate itself from it. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Ritual and Ceremony: Life Itself. |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/07/85)
Were you skilkful? > Below are three quotations from the literature. My hypothesis is that > they form a lineage, in which one person quoted the original > (inaccurately), and a third person quoted him (also inaccurately), > rather than looking up the original for himself. Your assignment, > should you decide to accept it, is to reconstruct the lineage. To > facilitate comparison, I have juxtaposed corresponding lines of the > three passages. Passage 1 consists of all those lines numbered "1", > etc., but the numbers indicate nothing about relative chronological > order. > Which comes first, second, and third? Bill Jefferys was the only one who tried to figure this out (at least, the only one who sent me an answer). He inferred that both 2 and 3 were independent descendants of 1, based on the calculation that the Hamming distance of 1 from either 2 or 3 is less than the distance between 2 and 3. This is close, I believe, but not correct (and not the only logical inference from that result). The quotations were published in the order 2-1-3. So if we take a tree with 1 as the root (Bill's answer) we *do* get a path from 2 to 3 going through 1, another reasonable inference. Adding the temporal information allows a resolution of the ambiguity. I re-present the quotations below, arranged according to order of publication. I suggest you print this out; it's much easier to look at on paper than on a screen. 2 Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for 1 Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for 3 Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for 2 all of its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second 1 all of its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second 3 all its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second 2 machine, just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or 1 machine just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or 3 machine just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or 2 information which should be built into the first machine? The answer 1 information that should be built into the first machine? The answer 3 information that should be built into the first machine? The answer 2 came out to be of the order of 1500 bits -- 1500 choices between 1 comes out to be of the order of 1500 bits -- 1500 choices between 3 comes out to be of the order of 1,500 bits -- 1,500 choices between 2 alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer 1 alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer 3 alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer 2 is very suggestive, because 1500 bits happens to be also the order of 1 is very suggestive, because 1500 bits happens to be also of the order of 3 is very suggestive, because 1,500 bits happens to be also of the order of 2 magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large 1 magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large 3 magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large 2 protein molecule which, immersed in bath of nutrients, can induce the 1 protein molecule which, immersed in bath of nutrients, can induce the 3 protein molecule which, immersed in bath of nutrients, can induce the 2 assembly of these nutrients into another large protein molecule like 1 assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like 3 assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like 2 itself, and then separate itself from it. 1 itself, and then separate itself from it. 3 itself, and then separate itself from it. The references for each are (in chronological order): 2. Marcel J E Golay, "Reflections of a communication engineer", _Analytical Chemistry_, 33(7), June 1961, 23a, 28a-36a. 1. Quotation of (2) in _Scientific Creationism_, by Henry Morris, 1974. He gives the source as: Marcel J. E. Golay, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," _Analytical Chemistry_, Vol. 33 (June 1961), p. 23. 3. Quotation of (2) in _The Neck of the Giraffe_, by Francis Hitching, 1982. He gives the source as: M. J. E. Golay, 'Reflections of a communications engineer', _Analytical Chemistry_, 33 (June 1961), p. 23. --- I suggest that Hitching borrowed Morris' already slightly inaccurate quote, and added a few more errors himself. This hypothesis is consistent with (1) the order of publication, (2) Bill's Hamming distance calculations, (3) the additional information contained in the way the citations were given by Morris and Hitching. Morris writes 'communications' rather than 'communication', and 23, not 23a. Hitching carries along both of these errors, which I take to be a further suggestion of geneological relationship. Further support for my suggestion is to be found in the similarity of some of the material used by Hitching to that in Gish's book (_Evolution - the Fossils say No!_). For example, Gish quotes a passage from Ommanney's _The Fishes_. The quotation he gives is slightly inaccurate (Gish adds superfluous punctuation), plus he misspells Ommanney's name as Ommaney. Hitching uses the *same* passage, with the *same* extra punctuation, and misspells Ommanney's name the *same* way. (For best results, use 1973 edition of ETFSN) Gish also writes, regarding the transition from reptile to mammal: "No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear." Hitching, discussing same topic, writes: "No one has put forward an explanation, either, of how a transitional form might have managed to chew while its jaw was halfway through being rearticulated, nor how it would hear while two jaw bones were being absorbed in its ear structure." The similarity is striking. I find it ironic that when an evolutionary writer wishes to discusses difficulties (supposed or otherwise) for evolutionary theory, that he should go to the creationists to find out what they are! No doubt some of the evolutionary readers on this net will find it ironic that I support my contention with considerations remarkably similar to those used in attempts to contruct phylogenies based on nucleotide or amino-acid residue sequence analysis! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "A mind like cement: thoroughly mixed and permanently set" |