miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (07/10/85)
Merlyn Leroy, responding to a note I had written on informational thermo- dynamics, writes: > There is the Miller experiment, which attempted to recreated the > young Earth environment, ran an energy source through it (a spark gap), and > ended up with amino acids, some fairly long, in only two weeks. There are many problems with Miller's experiments; I'll mention just a few briefly. First, all he produced was racemates, i.e., a 50% 50% mixture of laevorotary and dextrorotary amino acids. These molecules are mirror images of each other (geometrically). However, virtually all life uses only L-forms. The presence of even a single D-form can be lethal. Second, the destruction rate of the compounds is far higher than the production rate. When you trap out the products to get around this problem, you also remove the products from their energy source, and further progress becomes impossible. It's a catch-22 situation. Third, he generated no code capable of carrying information. Ignoring for a moment the problem of the D-form amino acids, he has (roughly) a random-letter generator (using a chemical alphabet). What does he produce? A sequence of words such as: kjemmp lma wwqnx z pr gmbv ytc d qhiojfs xa u bqop. This does not carry information. Even if you generate short "words" such as "a", "i", or even "the" mixed in with the above, it has no information content since it is a meaningless sequence of characters generated randomly. You will never be able to generate randomly a meaningful code in the lifetime of the universe, even one as short as "the theory of evolution". I want to dwell on this third point a little longer, but from a different angle. A few weeks back on CNN, there was a little story on SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. This is a big telescope at Harvard (staffed only be evolutionists, of course) which has been scanning the skies for the last 25 years, hunting for evidence of life on another planet. They do this by examining the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, looking for "evidence of design". This has several implications for net.origins. First, the SETI group must feel that time, chance, and natural processes are not sufficient to produce a code capable of carrying information. In this case, the code is electromagnetic. Anyone currently reading this note is looking at a 26 letter code and no one, I'm sure, thinks it was produced by a random-letter generator, or a bug, or any other form of time, chance, and natural processes. When we look at the DNA of *any* life form, it is also a code (of a 4 chemical alphabet) which is far more advanced than any babble I'm likely to produce. The media on which the code is carried is unimportant. Why then do we say DNA was produced by time, chance, and natural processes? Second, SETI claims they can recognize a designed object, i.e., one which requires intelligence (the I in SETI). Note that this is not due to any inherent properties in the object itself. The designed object will be some pattern of electromagnetic frequency in a sea of random electromagnetic fre- quencies. It must be, therefore, be due solely to the nature of the pattern itself, i.e., a code carrying some information. Yet not a week goes by on this net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize evidence of design and intelligence. They tell us this, of course, only when it's convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. When they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just like all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference between a sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same beach, then - well, even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that which natural processes can produce. (A footnote here. Symmetry, such as that formed in a crystal like ice, provides no help for the evolutionists, despite comments by some on this net. One of the guys CNN talked to from SETI mentioned they got a symmetric pattern once - they had discovered a pulsar. It contained no information, however, and although an important discovery, provided no hope of ever producing life.) Finally, it is theoretically possible to translate the DNA patterns of E. coli into an electromagnetic pattern (DNA, of course, being based on a simple four character alphabet). This is a simple mapping function, e.g., these very words have been mapped several times into analog and digital elec- tronic values from when my fingers typed on 26 keys. All are equivalent, of course. If SETI were to pick up such a transmission of E. coli DNA patterns, it would be trivial to recognize, and no doubt the High Priest of Evolution, Carl Sagan, would say: "Aha! We have evidence of an intelligent designer, which we have not seen directly, but must exist." So when that same Carl Sagan sees E. coli here on earth, along with vastly more advanced forms of life expressing codes we haven't even begun to decipher, must less design ourselves (simply expressed in a chemical rather than electronic alphabet) what does he say? "Evolution is a fact - like apples falling off trees." For my part, I'll stick with a Creator and information theory, rather than with Sagan and wishful thinking. P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/11/85)
> A few weeks back on CNN, there was a little story on SETI, the > Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. > SETI claims they can recognize a designed object, i.e., one which > requires intelligence (the I in SETI). Note that this is not due to any > inherent properties in the object itself. The designed object will be some > pattern of electromagnetic frequency in a sea of random electromagnetic fre- > quencies. It must be, therefore, be due solely to the nature of the pattern > itself, i.e., a code carrying some information. Yet not a week goes by on this > net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize evidence of > design and intelligence. They tell us this, of course, only when it's > convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. When > they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just like > all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference between a > sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same beach, then - > well, even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that > which natural processes can produce. > If SETI were to pick up such a transmission of E. coli DNA patterns, > it would be trivial to recognize, and no doubt the High Priest of Evolution, > Carl Sagan, would say: "Aha! We have evidence of an intelligent designer, > which we have not seen directly, but must exist." So when that same Carl > Sagan sees E. coli here on earth, along with vastly more advanced forms of > life expressing codes we haven't even begun to decipher, must less design > ourselves (simply expressed in a chemical rather than electronic alphabet) > what does he say? "Evolution is a fact - like apples falling off trees." > > P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the > net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize > created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on > earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? > A. Ray Miller This is an intelligent question, demanding a good answer. I am not sure I am qualified to suply one, but here goes. If the members of SETI claim to have a flawless test for "design", they are as wrong as many creationists. There is no double standard here. I believe the members of SETI would, in fact, claim that they are searching for "probable" evidence of intelligent design. After all, if you were searching for extra terrestrial intelligence, you wouldn't scan every micro second of arc in the intergalactic void. Instead, you would search for events that "appear" to indicate intelligence. Upon closer investigation, you might be right or wrong. Indeed, when the first pulsars were discovered, some scientists became quite excited, thinking that the periodic electromagnetic emissions indicated intelligent design. Closer observation refuted this theory, and disappointed many. Similarly, SETI may discover electromagnetic signals that "appear" designed. Next time, they might be right, and it might lead to life; or they might be wrong, and it still might lead to life. Sagans is not at all inconsistent, although he may not have chosen his words carefully; a mistake we have all made. I hope this explains things. I will address the other, not so intelligent, falacies in your article later. -- main(){ printf("I believe I have free will, therefore I must."); } Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/11/85)
> Yet not a week goes by on this > net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize evidence of > design and intelligence. They tell us this, of course, only when it's > convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. When > they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just like > all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference between a > sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same beach, then - > well, even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that > which natural processes can produce. > A. Ray Miller It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day ... Good morning boys and girls (big smile), how are you today? This morning, we are going to talk about fundamental concepts in science. Now I know these will be obvious to you, but someday, when religion clouds your otherwise sharp minds, you might forget them. I understand some of you went to the beach last weekend and made sand castles. Did you really design them? How do you know? Did you see the patterns made by the random action of the waves? Have you ever seen anyone design these patterns? Have you ever seen waves produce a sand castle? Have you ever heard of any mechanism that might explain natural castle formation? Some adult may ask you if the patterns were designed, and the castles random. Remember, as prince Wednesday says, "you have to trust your senses." We therefore assume, until proven wrong, that castles are designed. Thus, when you see a sand castle, you will say it is designed. Can you say "induction". Sure. I knew you could. All of science is based on it. You don't need angular momentum to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. I realize this is obvious to you children, but some adults have trouble with it. And remember last week, the story about the tribe that still makes arrow heads. It is certainly reasonable to assume specific items are designed, when you can watch them being made. Now children, have you ever seen Mr. Miller, or his mythical God create life? I haven't. Assessing (subjectively of course) the amount of "design" in life cannot prove creationism or evolution. Since we do not see speciation every day (designed or natural), we have nothing to go on. Both camps had better look somewhere else for evidence. But I'm sure you kids all understand this. Now don't forget to brush your teeth. -- main(){ printf("I believe I have free will, therefore I must."); } Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/12/85)
> Merlyn Leroy, responding to a note [A. Ray Miller] had written on >informational thermodynamics, writes: >> There is the Miller experiment, which attempted to recreated the >> young Earth environment, ran an energy source through it (a spark gap), and >> ended up with amino acids, some fairly long, in only two weeks. >[A. Ray Miller] > There are many problems with Miller's experiments; I'll mention just a >few briefly. > [... (argument I don't know much about skipped)] > Second, the destruction >rate of the compounds is far higher than the production rate. When you trap >out the products to get around this problem, you also remove the products from >their energy source, and further progress becomes impossible. It's a catch-22 >situation. I'm not sure I believe this. If the amino acids are destroyed so soon after creation(?!), how did they manage to form long chains? (I assume that's what Merlyn meant by "some fairly long". Or is that right?) Also, I thought others had since done similar experiments without the trap, with similar results. > Third, he generated no code capable of carrying information. If he'd have done that, he'd pretty much have created (that word again!) life in the lab, right? What do you expect in just 2 weeks in such a small container? Given most of the surface of the earth, and a billion or so years, the appearance of complex, self-reproducing molecules wouldn't be too suprising. (No! I did not say that just because there was so many opportunities, it must have happened. I said it's much (*much*) more likely to happen under those circumstances than in Miller's experiment) And once you have self-reproducing molecules complex enough to undergo nonfatal mutations, it's almost certain to lead to something we'd recognize as life. >Ignoring for a moment the problem of the D-form amino acids, he has (roughly) a >random-letter generator (using a chemical alphabet). What does he produce? A >sequence of words such as: kjemmp lma wwqnx z pr gmbv ytc d qhiojfs xa u bqop. >This does not carry information. Even if you generate short "words" such as >"a", "i", or even "the" mixed in with the above, it has no information content >since it is a meaningless sequence of characters generated randomly. You will >never be able to generate randomly a meaningful code in the lifetime of the >universe, even one as short as "the theory of evolution". Ah, but with self-reproducing molecules (yes, the first one of those has to occur by chance) there's an editor (natural selection) that throws out the bad stuff and keeps the good, and this is where the information comes from. Consider as an analogy a computer program that learns to play chess by playing against itself: It starts out with a not-very-good strategy (like picking a move at random), and randomly produces new strategies, then tests them by playing them off against versions of itself that don't use the new strategy, and if the new strategy does not make the program play better, trashing it and trying again. Notice that although most of the strategies will not work very well (or even make any sense), the program will gradually become better and better, to an arbitrary level of expertise. It'll just take a long time. But surely all of the strategies were generated randomly, so where does the program's apparent expertise come from? Does the just- described scenario violate information theory in some way? > [description of SETI ...], looking for "evidence >of design". This has several implications for net.origins. > First, the SETI group must feel that time, chance, and natural processes >are not sufficient to produce a code capable of carrying information. What do you mean, 'capable of carrying information'? Just about everything carries information, it's just that not all of the information is meaningful. (Now try to define meaningful :-) I am reminded of I-forget-who publishing several groups of numbers. Some of them turned out to carry meaningful information (his birthdate, ARPAnet node address, etc.) and some of which were just random digits. Assuming that you mean 'codes that *do* carry meaningful information', they do think they can occur by chance. Also, that the most likely way for them to occur is for life to 'occur', then send them. > In this >case, the code is electromagnetic. Anyone currently reading this note is >looking at a 26 letter code and no one, I'm sure, thinks it was produced by a >random-letter generator, or a bug, or any other form of time, chance, and >natural processes. I think I'll confuse things a little here by bringing up AI again. In the Computer Recreations column of a recent Scientific American (titled something like 'the art of turning file literature into gibberish'), there was a description of an AI program that looked at a bunch of text, figured out the frequencies of different sequences of letters, then produced random text with roughly the same distribution. Using short sequences of letters, the output looked like gibberish, but it wasn't completely meaningless. For instance, it was reasonably easy to tell French gibberish from English and German gibberish, and many of the words really existed. Even though they hadn't occured in the input! Using longer sequences, words came out correct most or even all of the time, and it was possible to tell who the block of input text was written by from the writing style. I suspect that Mark V. Shaney (mvs@ alice.UUCP) is an AI using this type of algorithm with recent net.singles postings as input. Here's an excerpt from one of his postings: For a year, I lived with a girl, on a consulting basis. Well we sleep together at home, why should we come if you had gone anywhere on St Denis Street and asked a woman whether she was going to consider you a whore or a telephone. When you stop thinking of sex as something to be near him and have been fooling around for hundreds of years, at least, and the special time requirements it entails. If you don't shove it under their roof, you will be able to share more of your stomach, your SO to your personal life and decide which is more trouble than it is quite likely that you are looking for. It should be obvious that this carries some meaningful information, since it indicated to me how this had been produced. But it's the result of random character generation! (Biased random character generation, but random nonetheless) Consider also that the information it carries is about its own (random!) origin. > When we look at the DNA of *any* life form, it is also a >code (of a 4 chemical alphabet) which is far more advanced than any babble I'm >likely to produce. The media on which the code is carried is unimportant. >Why then do we say DNA was produced by time, chance, and natural processes? How about because it also contains information about its own (random!) origin. 'The Evolution of Darwinism' (Scientific American, July '85; strongly recomended reading for anyone involved in this debate) describes a type of mutation called tandem multiplication, and gives sections of the collagen gene in chickens and the immunoglobulin genes in mice as examples of genes that show the mark of this type of mutation. > Second, SETI claims they can recognize a designed object, i.e., one which >requires intelligence (the I in SETI). Note that this is not due to any >inherent properties in the object itself. The designed object will be some >pattern of electromagnetic frequency in a sea of random electromagnetic fre- >quencies. It must be, therefore, be due solely to the nature of the pattern >itself, i.e., a code carrying some information. Not just any information. Information is meaningless unless you know how to interpret it. The SETI people are basically looking for something that might be a representation of the message 'We are here!' > Yet not a week goes by on this >net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize evidence of >design and intelligence. Not quite. We tell you that it can't be measured objectively. We tell you that the design you see in the natural world could be something else, too. Karl Dahlke mentioned that when pulsars were first discovered, people thought they were signs of alien intelligence. So the evolutionists (and the SETI people) can see design where it isn't, too. > They tell us this, of course, only when it's >convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. When >they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just like >all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference between a >sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same beach, then - >well, even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that >which natural processes can produce. We recognize sandcastles and arrowheads as manmade at least partly from experience. Rock briges, salt pillars, and snowflakes, we recognize as natural from experience, even though they may look designed at first. In other words, we see design in things we know are artificial, and not in things we know aren't. Since you believe everything was created, it's only to be expected that you'll see design everywhere. Let me bring up another example of something the SETI people are confused about -- red giants. Freeman(?) Dyson suggested that a growing civilization's power needs would grow to the point at which it was necessary to trap all of its sun's energy, presumably in some sort of sphere (that's where the term 'Dyson sphere' comes from). Then someone pointed out that Dyson spheres might look quite a bit like red giant stars, of which there are quite a few around. So, are the red giants natural or artificial? Theories exist explaining their origin exist both ways exist, so they can't really be counted as evidence one way or the other. > (A footnote here. Symmetry, such as that formed in a crystal like ice, >provides no help for the evolutionists, despite comments by some on this net. >One of the guys CNN talked to from SETI mentioned they got a symmetric pattern >once - they had discovered a pulsar. It contained no information, however, and >although an important discovery, provided no hope of ever producing life.) Wrong. Pulsars were discarded as evidence for life because a perfectly good alternate explanation was found. If nobody had thought of any reasonable alternate theory, people *would* be justified in counting them as evidence of extraterrestrial life. Note that an alternate theory (evolution) about the order in the natural world has been put forward, and, despite all creationist screaming to the contrary, shown to fit the facts very well. So you don't get to count 'design' as evidence for creation. > Finally, it is theoretically possible to translate the DNA patterns of >E. coli into an electromagnetic pattern (DNA, of course, being based on a >simple four character alphabet). This is a simple mapping function, e.g., >these very words have been mapped several times into analog and digital elec- >tronic values from when my fingers typed on 26 keys. All are equivalent, of >course. If SETI were to pick up such a transmission of E. coli DNA patterns, >it would be trivial to recognize, Do you mean recognize as E. coli DNA patterns, or recognize as patterns? If you mean the latter, I agree. They'd probably (I haven't seen them myself, so I'm guessing here) be noticed immediately as not the sort of thing that occurs as the result of any known astronomical process. (as to why E. coli DNA patterns aren't recognized as patterns when we find them in E. coli, they are. We recognize them as the sort of thing that occurs as the result of known evolutionary processes). If you mean the former, I disagree. Someone'd have to notice that the patterns are the same sort of patterns that show up in DNA, then check all known organisms' DNA against it until one matched. > and no doubt the High Priest of Evolution, >Carl Sagan, He's an astronomer, not a biologist. You creationists really do lump all science together, don't you? > would say: "Aha! We have evidence of an intelligent designer, >which we have not seen directly, but must exist." I guess you meant the former. Oh, well. I think your description of Carl's reaction is wrong, too. I think he'd say "It's too much of a coincidence; there must be something we don't understand going on. *This bears further investigation*." > So when that same Carl >Sagan sees E. coli here on earth, along with vastly more advanced forms of >life expressing codes we haven't even begun to decipher, must less design >ourselves (simply expressed in a chemical rather than electronic alphabet) >what does he say? "Evolution is a fact - like apples falling off trees." Like I said above, E. coli DNA in E. coli makes sense as the result of known processes. E. coli DNA transmitted from the crab nebula doesn't. This is an important difference. > For my part, I'll stick with a Creator and information theory, rather >than with Sagan and wishful thinking. I'll stick with science and evolutionary theory, rather than religious nuts and wishful thinking. >P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the >net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize >created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on >earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? No thanks, it can't be done. All we've got are heuristics.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/12/85)
[This line was intentionally left blank] In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > Indeed, everywhere you look on this planet, you > see craftsmanship; it is in no wise "scientific" to > ignore something so obvious. In article <32500041@uiucdcsb> miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA writes: > Second, SETI claims they can recognize a designed object, i.e., one which >requires intelligence (the I in SETI). Note that this is not due to any >inherent properties in the object itself. The designed object will be some >pattern of electromagnetic frequency in a sea of random electromagnetic fre- >quencies. It must be, therefore, be due solely to the nature of the pattern >itself, i.e., a code carrying some information. Yet not a week goes by on >this net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize >evidence of design and intelligence. They tell us this, of course, only when >it's convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. When >they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just >like all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference >between a sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same >beach, then - well, even a child can recognize that which took creative >thought and that which natural processes can produce. Hmmm. Mr. Holden says that everywhere we look, we're going to see crafts- manship, apparently evidence of intelligent design. Mr. Miller says that "SETI claims they can recognize a designed object". So tell me, gentlemen, why is it that every electromagnetic wave that SETI's sensors detect don't have the scientists jumping for joy, believing that they've found evidence of intelligent life? Why is it that, when comparing arrowheads and sand castles to rocks and wave patterns, we *can* determine that the former are products of intelligence? Why is it that "even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that which natural processes can produce"? Could it be that 99.9% of the stuff in the universe *doesn't* exhibit evidence of intelligent design? Could it be that rocks and wave patterns on the beach and the "sea of random electromagnetic frequencies" that Mr. Miller refers to *don't* look like "craftsmanship"? Yes, it certainly could. In fact, as Mr. Miller so aptly (albeit accidentally) demonstrates, all of the above look like "that which natural processes can produce", and hence no "supernatural force" is implied at all. [This blank line, however, was an accident] -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/14/85)
> A few weeks back on CNN, there was a little story on SETI, the > Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. > First, the SETI group must feel that time, chance, and natural processes > are not sufficient to produce a code capable of carrying information. What does this statement (I mean assumption) really mean? Everything we know about the *natural* universe comes from electromagnetic radiation. Is this not information? > Here, the code is electromagnetic. Anyone currently reading this note is > looking at a 26 letter code and no one, I'm sure, thinks it was produced by a > random-letter generator, or a bug, or any other form of time, chance, and > natural processes. When we look at the DNA of *any* life form, it is also a > code (of a 4 chemical alphabet) which is far more advanced than any babble I'm > likely to produce. The media on which the code is carried is unimportant. You know, I sometimes enjoy searching for the specific fallacy. Of course, the entire article is fallacious, but I mean right down to the word. I believe I have found one of the "specific words" here. The word is "unimportant". How did you decide the media was unimportant? It certainly gives you nice results, which is probably all you are after. But pray continue. > Why then do we say DNA was produced by time, chance, and natural processes? Because the evidence supports this. > Finally, it is theoretically possible to translate the DNA patterns of > E. coli into an electromagnetic pattern (DNA, [ description of the implementation, which proves that Mr. Miller is a good engineer. I am not sure about the quality of his science. ] > If SETI were to pick up such a transmission of E. coli DNA patterns, > it would be trivial to recognize, and no doubt the High Priest of Evolution, > Carl Sagan, would say: "Aha! We have evidence of an intelligent designer, > which we have not seen directly, but must exist." So when that same Carl > Sagan sees E. coli here on earth, along with vastly more advanced forms of > life expressing codes we haven't even begun to decipher, must less design > ourselves (simply expressed in a chemical rather than electronic alphabet) > what does he say? "Evolution is a fact - like apples falling off trees." > For my part, I'll stick with a Creator and information theory. > A. Ray Miller This bastardization of information theory is just as insulting as the more traditional thermodynamics arguments. I suppose, Mr. Miller, if I transmit the positions of the atoms in an ice crystal, using computers and radio transmitters, you will say "praise Gawd, he came down and formed that ice crystal with his mighty hand". Since the computer was designed, everything it describes must be designed? What made you decide the media was unimportant? Was it wishful thinking, when you saw that information theory might be another graspable straw? There are mechanisms proposed, and evidence supporting the natural formation of DNA codes. There is no mechanism, or evidence indicating this code might be transmitted into space on an electromagnetic carrier wave. There is no contradiction here!!! The media is important. If we receive such a transmission, it *probably* indicates intelligence. There is a remote chance that a living electromagnetic startrek creature has *natural* resinating DNA, but we shall not dwell on this. To investigate evolution vs creationism, you have to do more than simple -log(P*(1-P)) calculations. You need logic and analysis as well. -- Three of the most brilliant concepts are very counterintuitive: evolution, capitalism, and relativity. Despite our intuitions and biases, the evidence supports all three. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/16/85)
In article <43@uw-june> gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) writes: > >'The Evolution of Darwinism' (Scientific American, July '85; strongly >recomended reading for anyone involved in this debate) describes a type of >mutation called tandem multiplication, and gives sections of the collagen >gene in chickens and the immunoglobulin genes in mice as examples of genes >that show the mark of this type of mutation. > The most amazing thing I noticed in this article was the shortness of many of the replicands. This implies that *very* short amino acid chains(on the order of a few *tens* of peptides) can have significant enzymatic activity. This means that early life may have been possible with a *far* simpler structure than any living organism. It certainly throws many of the probability arguments into a cocked hat, since essentially all chains of that length will form randomly in a rather short time(there are only about 10,000 or so, or maybe 100,000). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (07/17/85)
>From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A. Ray Miller) >You will >never be able to generate randomly a meaningful code in the lifetime of the >universe, even one as short as "the theory of evolution". There is an assumption of rate and/or of the liftime of the universe implicit in this statement. Ray is assigning HIS desired outcome a high probability (possibly certainty) and making assumptions to prove it. Given a fast enough random letter generator (none exists here/now) you will find the probability of a meaningful string coming out will indeed become high. In the absence of absolute knowledge of the rate at which a primordial soup might produce life, we can make no conclusions about the probability of life arising on Earth. We can note that life is here, and investigate the possible rate of life arising. This is one of the aims of SETI, about which A.R.M writes: > > [a long somewhat stilted discussion on SETI and its goals and assumptions. > I was going to include it, but felt it was too long. The main point was > that some on this net are saying to quit using evidence of desgin as > evidence for special creation, but the SETI project is relying on finding > signals in which the SETI crew will find evidence of design. The SETI project is looking for regular electromagnetic phenomena which might be intelligently produced signals. IF such signals are found (as with pulsars) they will be examined for patterns which would be evidence of intelligence as we understand it. Such evidence will not lead to the assumption of intelligence in the cautious, but will cause many to increase their hopes/estimates of probability of finding other intelligent life. The key is that they will search for manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum, not just regular radio waves. This argument reminded me of the discussion on linguistic evolution, which confused a (postulated) natural process (evolution) with an intelligence- directed process (development of language.) Many forms of electromagnetic waves exist in nature--you are seeing some now-- but our manipulation of those forms is evidence of intelligence. >P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the >net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize >created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on >earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? I believe one pattern SETI is looking for is the prime number sequence (1,2,3, 5,7,11,.......), encoded and repeated at intervals. No one has yet postulated a natural cause for such a series of events. -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!rosevax!hogan Quality used to be free, but now it merely has a fantastic ROI.
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (07/23/85)
> There is the Miller experiment, which attempted to recreated the > young Earth environment, ran an energy source through it (a spark gap), and > ended up with amino acids, some fairly long, in only two weeks. There may be danger in quoting the now famous Miller experiment as an example of abiogensis. As I have been told, Miller's original intention may have been to demonstrate that organic compounds could be formed from inorganics. At that time, most chemists felt that organic compounds could only be formed from other organic compounds or life processes. Miller's experiment showed one way that organic compounds could be synthesized from a collection of simple inorganic compounds. If synthesis is the objective, then the trap used to recover the organics makes sense. The Miller experiment has subsequently been reinterpreted to indicate a possible environment for the early Earth. A more telling argument for abiogensis may be obtained from a later demonstration of essentially the same experiment. I am unable to provide a suitable reference at this time. While Miller was the first, his may not be the best experiment for demonstrating the possibility of abiogensis. Don't forget about the clay formation hypothesis for abiogensis. Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!iham1!gjphw
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/02/85)
> There may be danger in quoting the now famous Miller experiment as an > example of abiogensis. As I have been told, Miller's original intention > may have been to demonstrate that organic compounds could be formed from > inorganics. At that time, most chemists felt that organic compounds could > only be formed from other organic compounds or life processes. Miller's > experiment showed one way that organic compounds could be synthesized from > a collection of simple inorganic compounds. If synthesis is the objective, > then the trap used to recover the organics makes sense. The Miller experiment > has subsequently been reinterpreted to indicate a possible environment for the > early Earth. > Wrong. Chemists had established that "...organic compounds could only be formed from other organic compounds or life processes." was incorrect in the early 1800s when urea was successfully synthesized with non-organic compounds. If this the level of knowledge that you are arguing from, I can't take any of your other arguments seriously. > > Patrick Wyant > AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) > *!iham1!gjphw
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (08/10/85)
> Wrong. Chemists had established that "...organic compounds could only > be formed from other organic compounds or life processes." was incorrect > in the early 1800s when urea was successfully synthesized with non-organic > compounds. > > If this the level of knowledge that you are arguing from, I can't take > any of your other arguments seriously. The purpose of the Urey-Miller experiment was to ascertain if any AMINO ACIDS could be synthesized UNDER THE NATURAL CONDITIONS present on the earth during its formative period. It was already well known that organic compounds (including amino acids) could be synthesized from compounds that were purely inorganic; the issue here was natural conditions (this sort of precludes such things as synthesis in a 5,000 psi catalytic hydrogenator...). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York | | UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry | | {rice,shell}!baylor!/ | | VOICE 716/741-9185 syr!buf!/ | | TELEX {via WUI} 69-71461 ansbak: ELGECOMCLR | | | | "Have you hugged your cat today?" | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++