I think the real responses are that (1) as you agree, numerous proteins
could do that job of the one particularly mentioned, just as (a crude
analogy) numerous hands of cards could win a particular game of poker, and
(2) pretty much no one is saying such a protein would simply pop into
existence, but rather evolutionary theorists generally believe that there
were many evolutionary precursors to the current simplest forms of life
around. (The precursors aren't around now because they were not as fit as
their successors.)
Abiogenesis is, of course, evolutionary theory's weakest link right now --
it's very speculative, and there are no clearly winning theories.
Nonetheless, pretty much no one believes the view Joseph puts forward and
then critiques. Hence, he's putting forth -- over, and over, and over, and
over again -- a straw man.
If (1) and (2) were false (i.e., if this were the only relevant protein, and
if it had to be purely randomly, not evolutionarily, assembled), I think
Joseph would be right.
But people have a hard time taking him seriously simply because (1) and (2)
are true, so far as scientists know anyway.
I think also his condescending eloquence, -combined with- his seemingly
invincible -scientific- ignorance (I do NOT mean general stupidity or
anything like that) brings them to lose patience with him. There's been a
vicious circle of rhetorical degeneration on both sides, but the facts about
evolutionary theory are on the side of Joseph's many critics.
(My comments here aren't as precise as I'd like, but I'm in a hurry.)
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Randy Bronson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 6:24 AM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Probability question
>
>
>
> As a layman with no scientific training I've been observing on the
> list for several months. But I've been intrigued by the recent
> discussion on probability and would like to pose a question.
> Joseph's original contention was that abiogenesis was an event so
> improbable that it could not have happened without intelligent
> intervention. His viewpoint was argued against by noting that a
> particular hand of cards dealt to a player or a particular roll of
> the dice over ten trials were also seemingly improbable events which
> happened nevertheless. But it seems to me that these examples deal
> with a different type of situation than the one that Joseph originally
> described.
> In Joseph's situation a particular subset of all possible outcomes
> was specified in advance. It was not denied that some amino acids
> would form chains of varying lengths only that no functional proteins
> would be form(and as Pim has correctly pointed out there is more that
> one functional amino acid chain that could be formed). In the counter-
> examples that were offered ANY dealt hand of cards or ANY roll of the
> dice can be used as examples of an improbable event that actually
> happens. To bring the idea of the wager back into the discussion,
> would you bet ten thousand dollars that you would draw the same hand
> after the deck is shuffled or that you could roll the dice in exactly
> the same sequence again?
> A process which could produce any one of a thousand outcomes only
> produces one. That outcome does in fact occur but to specify it in
> advance would be very difficult. It seems to me that this is the
> sense in which Joseph's critique is valid.
> Looking forward to your responses.
>
> Randy Bronson
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> | |
> | ______ ______ _____ Randy Bronson, Manufacturing Tech |
> | /\_____\/\_____\/\____\ TECH-SOURCE INC. |
> | \/_ _/ / ____/\/_ _/ 442 S. North Lake Blvd. |
> | / / // / /___ / / / Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 |
> | / / /_\/___ /_/ / / TEL : 407-262-7100 |
> | / / //\____/ /\_\/ /_\ FAX : 407-339-2554 |
> | \/_/ \/_____/\/______/ EMAIL: randy@techsource.com |
> | |
> |_____________________________________________________________________|
>
>
>
>
>