>Ccogan: I suppose that even you would admit that many living things are
very
complicated. This certainly proves that material things can be as complex
as we might desire.
DNAunion: *IF* you are implying that this in any way validates evolution,
your logic is flawed. Existence of something complicated does not tell us
that it came about by evolutionary mechanisms.
For example, "I suppose that even you would admit that computers are very
complicated. That certainly proves that material things can be as complex as
we might desire." Computers are designed.
>Ccogan: Finally, I may as well point out that, if you understood the
literally *infinite* richness that derives mathematically from the principle
of repeated, cumulative variational branching, it's doubtful that you would
claim that the theory is "simplistic."
DNAunion: That is incorrect: there is not *literally infinite* richness
produced by repeated cumulative variational branching. Had you said
"infinite", in double quotes to indicate the word should not be taken
literally, then your comment could be considered correct. But had you even
said simply infinite, without double quotes, your statement would be wrong.
And it is clearly wrong since you prefaced the word infinite with the word
LITERALLY.
Simple refutation. There are 20 amino acids. If they are peptide bonded
into a 10,000 amino acid protein, then there are 20^10,000 possible unique
arrangements of symbols (i.e., amino acids). This is many orders of
magnitude larger than the estimated number of fundamental particles in the
universe.
But then there are 20 times MORE unique combinations that are have just one
more amino acid in the chain. Then there are another 20 times MORE thatn
that one when another single amino acid is added, and so on, and so on, and
so on. All the possible unique combinations have not been hit, and never
will, even if the universe gets to be trillions of trillions of trillions of
trillions … [you get the idea] years old.
>Ccogan: Is it possible that it's your *understanding* of it that is
"simplistic"?
DNAunion: That might be the pot calling the kettle black.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:26:58 EDT