Re: Evolution's probability
Ed Brayton (cynic@net-link.net)
Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:39:04 -0400Brian D Harper wrote:
>
> At 10:44 AM 9/28/98 -0700, Joseph wrote:
> >Evolution is a still-born latter-day alchemism as likely as gold is an
> >alloy. The probability of only one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c by
> >evolution is 2.3x10^-75. That is the same probabilty that gold is an
> >alloy.
> >
> >Belief in evolution requires a religious belief in factoids and miracles
> >like alchemism.
> >
>
> I see you've dropped Yockey's name, perhaps due to my corrections,
> yet you continue to abuse him. When I read the above I thought
> it sounded familiar, so I looked at the index of Yockey's book
> under alchemists and found section 10.9.2 "Is chemical evolution
> a latter day alchemism?" beginning on page 286. The title is
> suggestive enough, but there is also the quote on page 288,
>
> "Although it was justified when the work started, chemical
> evolution, a latter-day alchemism, is still-born and no
> amount of work on that paradigm, however religiously it
> may be carried out, will tell us how life originated."
> --Hubert Yockey, <Information Theory and Molecular Biology>
> Cambridge University Press, 1992.
>
> Joel asks whether you are discussing the origin of life.
> Clearly you are but for some reason, though you copied
> many other of Yockey's words, you wrote evolution instead
> of chemical evolution. You also pretended elsewhere that
> Yockey's calculations had something to do with mutations,
> again suggesting evolution rather than chemical evolution.
> What gives Joseph? Have you just misunderstood what Yockey
> wrote or are you deliberately trying to mislead?
I think it is obvious that Joseph is just stuck on the inflated rhetoric
train speeding down the track and he can't get off without injuring
himself.
Ed