Re: Calling All Evolutionists To Get Rich Quick.

Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:55:44 -0400

At 09:41 PM 10/11/98 -0700, Joseph wrote:
>Brian:
> You wrote:
>> So, here is my challenge to you. Justify your number 10^-75 to within 10
orders of
>> magnitude and I'll concede to you that evolution is impossible.
>> Put your math where your mouth is.
>
> Thank you for taking up the gauntlet, Brian. Please check page 255 in
>Information Theory and Molecular Biology by H.P. Yockey and read 2.3 x
>10^-75.
>
> There is my part of the bargain. May I now read yours (> I'll concede
>to you that evolution is impossible.)?
>

Hmmm.... It seems I really botched in not specifying your part
in my challenge, i.e. what you are required to do if you fail
to justify your number. Hopefully you will stop repeating
this nonsense.

First of all, the person who performed this calculation is
an evolutionist:

"Thermodynamics and the theory of evolution by natural selection
are among the great scientific theories of the nineteenth
century." -- Hubert Yockey

There is also the curious quote that I previously pointed out
to you and that Pim was kind enough to remind you of:

"I showed that one is justified in believing that life
originated on Earth (and did not come from outer space,
section 10.8) several to many times in the period between
4.0x10^6 and 3.8x10^6 years ago."-- Hubert Yockey

So, Yockey believes that it is justifiable to believe
not just in a single origin of life, but multiple
origins of life. How could he possibly believe this
in view of the probability he calculated? Either you
misunderstood that calculation or Yockey is stark raving
mad. So, my question for you is why you accept without
question the computations of a madman.

But the main point is (as has already been pointed out
to you numerous times) that the calculation has nothing
to do with the evolution of a protein. It has to do
only with a very special theory for abiogenesis. A
proteins first scenario wherein proteins form spontaneously
*purely by chance*. With the possible exception of
Sidney Fox and his followers, no one today believes that
the origin of life occurred this way.

Now here's the dilemma. If you read the book you know
all this. I previously gave you the benefit of the
doubt by pointing it out to you. Yet you continue with
your distortions. And to cap it off, you dare say
things like:

'If you are interested in "lies, damn lies" and lies about
statistics, see Pim van Meurs, not me.' -- Joseph Mastropaolo

If there is a liar, it certainly isn't Pim. I will continue
to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, as I await your
retraction and apology.

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

"It appears to me that this author is asking
much less than what you are refusing to answer"
-- Galileo (as Simplicio in _The Dialogue_)