Annoying creationists

[DiskoVilante]

This discussion is so cool.

 

[kjkent1]

I'm glad this appears to be tongue-in-cheek. String theory and selection from alternative universes is well beyond what I would regard as a reasonable set of premises on which to build theories for the origin of life.

I'm having fun, but it's not tongue-in-cheek.

At first I thought that Susskind's theory as discussed in plain English in his book, "The Cosmic Landscape" (2006), is absurd. Then, I started struggling through his published papers, and those of the other theorists who discuss the pros and cons of string theory and anthropic principle. And, all of a sudden, it made sense (although I thoroughly admit that the math is far beyond my skills to comprehend, so I assume that other physicists have confirmed the results, if not the conclusions).

I also realized that many people, even many respected scientists, who are outside of the field high-energy physics, misunderstand anthropic principle, believing that it presents a plausible argument in favor of intelligent design, or God as creator -- when in fact it does not. But, I'm not going to get into this tangential argument -- at least not yet.

Susskind's remarkable conclusion is that string theory is another way of describing quantum mechanics via the "many worlds" interpretation, albeit from a different mathematical perspective. Both of these theories suggest to Susskind (and physicist Steven Weinberg) that the existence of our universe, and derivatively, what we observe within it, i.e., the galaxies, stars, elements, elementary particles, gravity, photons, electromagnetic/strong/weak nuclear forces, gravity carbon-based organic life, i.e., everything, is, the product of what appears to be an incredibly unlikely chain of events -- but only when viewed from our perspective as observers who happen to live in our particular locale in this particular universe.

That is, the laws of our universe, and the mathematical models which we develop to help us understand our universe, are all relative to our position as observer. So, like Einstein who found his scientific theories subject to relativistic behavior, Susskind finds all other theories equally subject to relativity.

As applied to a discussion of the probability of organic life arising on our planet and developing to the point where humans, as sentient beings, could contemplate such ideas, Susskind's theory does indeed resolve the question of how it is possible for what Dr. Kleinman, and others of his persuasion, view as such in incredibly improbable event, to have occurred.

Viewed from our limited perspective, and using fixed and immutable "laws" of probability to explain our existence, suggests that organic life could not have arisen by random chance. Thus, the theist will assume the logical alternative, i.e., God. But, in Susskind's view, organic life is easily explained, because if one thinks of a new universe being created as the result of every quantum event, where an alternative result actually occurs in a different universe, then the probability of organic life occurring in at least one of those alternative universes, becomes not just likely -- it becomes certain.

And, this is not to suggest that we cannot explain organic life using fixed mathematical models or observations from within our own universe -- we probably can. But, where an observationally confirmed occurrence (such as life) seems probabilistically incredible, we need only "step back" to a more distant vantage point, and suddenly, what appears absurd from our limited vantage point, becomes much more likely, and thus much more reasonable.

This is a big bone to swallow for many scientists -- especially as all science students learn early on that there are "rules" and "laws" which are not subject to relativistic effects.

Susskind uses an MRI machine in his book to give a visual of what happens when you treat all of the laws of the universe as relativistic. For someone who lives his/her entire life inside of the universe of a running MRI machine, and who knows no external universe, the "laws" of the universe are very different, than they are for someone who lives outside the MRI field effect. Depending upon your viewpoint, the laws of physics inside the MRI field are either fixed with respect to that mini universal space, or altered from a set of more expansive laws, which only appear once we step back away from the MRI machine and see the universe (or as Susskind calls it: the megaverse), from a wider scientific perspective.

So, what's all this mean, for the theories of evolution and abiogenesis? Simply this:

Life occurred in our universe, and we are here to contemplate it as a result. If you want to attribute this "miracle" to God, then that is your prerogative. If you want to explain it scientifically, then just take a few "steps" back, and Susskind's cosmic landscape theory can do it.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It’s also a worthless argument for the theory of evolution.

I'll tell Dr. Susskind you don't approve of his theory. I'm sure he'll be amused!

Is he coming to a courtroom near you too? I wonder what he thinks of the ball of string cheese theory?

As a scientist, you can't reasonably fall back on Genesis, unless you have some science to back it up. But, I admire you for at least stating that your alternative to a scientific explanation is magic.

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.

Oh no... another monkey wrench for kleinman's maths:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=61885

horizontal gene transfer between viruses and genes!

Another evolutionarian error. The mathematics of ev belongs to Dr Schneider and Paul.

Anyone who has ever treated Zoster knows that there is horizontal gene transfers. Only an evolutionarian would draw the conclusion that you can create new species by this mechanism. This is an example of articulett’s mathematics.

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

I feel this is a false dichotomy: I can both not care about Dr. Schneider's alleged thoughts and ideas, and still understand that you are misrepresenting them.

For someone who has not read his papers, how would you know if I am misrepresenting his ideas? This is so typical of evolutionarians. It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:

(1) Based on quotations earlier in this thread; I have not read his paper.

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

In my work the need for modelling of anything does not arise; it does not interest me more than at the basic level of interest I believe all scientists might feel. That does not stop me from realising that your conclusions are reversed.

Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!

What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).

[nothing that hasn't been said 200 times already]
Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.
[/see above]

The model may work for something like DarwinPond, which is much simpler, though.

Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model. Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.

Kleinman – you don’t believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo. God is your explanation for these things. Your evidence for God is the Bible and that a scientist’s model (ev) of a limited set of biological processes does not match reality when the results are extrapolated. I.e. Evolution by the methods simulated in ev would take too long.

It is not whether I believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo, this is what is being shown in Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection. Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available. Then you must consider that there is no known selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. This is what the mathematics is showing.

Scatequate can’t put together a coherent argument so he has taken to googling a couple terms and copying the links to this forum without reading the links himself.

Don't you ever tell the truth?

Of course I do, if for no other reason than to annoy you.

What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).

You have indeed said that. You've recited it over and over. But it's not got any truer, has it?

If this isn’t true, take it up with Dr Schneider, I base this conclusion on results from his computer model. Hey, are you ever going to give us a mathematical explanation for natural selection or do I have to ask this over and over?

I have presented an affirmative case for creation. I have given the example of the DNA replicase system to support irreducible complexity.

In what sense is this an "affirmative case for creation"? It doesn't take a magic invisible sky pixie to produce irreducible complexity.

Let’s hear your evolutionarian explanation for the origin of the DNA replicase system, or is that just one more gap in your theory? Maybe we should change the name of the “theory of evolution” to the “gap theory” since that seems to be the dominant feature in the theory.

I have made the analogy of SETI scientists and archeologists being able to recognize intelligence in their observations, something which evolutionarians refuse to do in their observations.

Or, to put it another way: "I have presented an afirmative case for pigs having wings. I have made the analogy of ornithologists and aviation engineers being able to recognize wings in their observations, something which pig farmers refuse to do in their observations."

Not quite, scientists learn to recognize patterns created by intelligent sources, whether they be archeological, radio waves or other types of patterns. Evolutionarians refuse to accept the patterns seen in genetics as having an intelligent source because it interferes with your belief system.

However, I prefer to concentrate on the mathematics of mutation and natural selection since it reveals the main flaw in the theory of evolution.

The difference between you and I Paul is that you try to pass off your belief system as science and refuse to acknowledge that your own computer model refutes your theory. Well, you have a choice, either fix your computer model or live in denial about the mathematical impossibility of your own theory. Since there is no selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, you will probably choose the later.

Hello, earth to mad person. Reciting these lies over and over won't make them true. It won't even make them convincing. It surely can't even make them convincing to you. We've shown you the clumsy mistakes in your math, we've shown you evidence for de novo production of genes, we've shown you entire genomes arising de novo in a test-tube, and reciting your gibble of windy nonsense won't make the facts go away.

So not only do genes arise de novo, now you are claiming entire genomes are arising de novo? The only thing you have shown is that you post links without ever reading what they say.

 

[kjkent1]

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.

You're wrong, Alan. You just don't understand why. If you disagree, then contact Susskind and discuss it with him. I already have.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.

You're wrong, Alan. You just don't understand why. If you disagree, then contact Susskind and discuss it with him. I already have.

If you want to believe there are 10^500 (not 10^499 or 10^501) alternative universes, go for it. It sounds acceptable in any court of law.

 

[John Hewitt]

Certainly. I am saying that as I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

I am also asking whether you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?

If ever you claim something, let me know.

 

[John Hewitt]

At first I thought that Susskind's theory as discussed in plain English in his book, "The Cosmic Landscape" (2006), is absurd. Then, I started struggling through his published papers, and those of the other theorists who discuss the pros and cons of string theory and anthropic principle. And, all of a sudden, it made sense (although I thoroughly admit that the math is far beyond my skills to comprehend, so I assume that other physicists have confirmed the results, if not the conclusions).

I also realized that many people, even many respected scientists, who are outside of the field high-energy physics, misunderstand anthropic principle, believing that it presents a plausible argument in favor of intelligent design, or God as creator -- when in fact it does not. But, I'm not going to get into this tangential argument -- at least not yet.
<snip>
Viewed from our limited perspective, and using fixed and immutable "laws" of probability to explain our existence, suggests that organic life could not have arisen by random chance. Thus, the theist will assume the logical alternative, i.e., God. But, in Susskind's view, organic life is easily explained, because if one thinks of a new universe being created as the result of every quantum event, where an alternative result actually occurs in a different universe, then the probability of organic life occurring in at least one of those alternative universes, becomes not just likely -- it becomes certain.

And, this is not to suggest that we cannot explain organic life using fixed mathematical models or observations from within our own universe -- we probably can. But, where an observationally confirmed occurrence (such as life) seems probabilistically incredible, we need only "step back" to a more distant vantage point, and suddenly, what appears absurd from our limited vantage point, becomes much more likely, and thus much more reasonable.
<snip>
So, what's all this mean, for the theories of evolution and abiogenesis? Simply this:

Life occurred in our universe, and we are here to contemplate it as a result. If you want to attribute this "miracle" to God, then that is your prerogative. If you want to explain it scientifically, then just take a few "steps" back, and Susskind's cosmic landscape theory can do it.

I don't quite understand what you mean by the anthropic principle in this context.
These parallel universes seem to be defined in a way that makes them unobservable and this explanation of the emergence of life would make its emergence the functional equivalent of a miracle.

I prefer to construct and examine theories that are not functionally miraculous. My work proposes a chemically parsimonious explanation for the emergence of life with no such overtones and I prefer that approach.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If ever you claim something, let me know.

Certainly.

I have claimed something, this is me letting you know.

If you are interested in knowing what I have claimed, you should look at my posts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Is he coming to a courtroom near you too? I wonder what he thinks of the ball of string cheese theory?

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.

Another evolutionarian error. The mathematics of ev belongs to Dr Schneider and Paul.

Anyone who has ever treated Zoster knows that there is horizontal gene transfers. Only an evolutionarian would draw the conclusion that you can create new species by this mechanism. This is an example of articulett’s mathematics.

For someone who has not read his papers, how would you know if I am misrepresenting his ideas? This is so typical of evolutionarians. It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:


Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!

Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model. Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.

It is not whether I believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo, this is what is being shown in Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection. Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available. Then you must consider that there is no known selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. This is what the mathematics is showing.

Of course I do, if for no other reason than to annoy you.

If this isn’t true, take it up with Dr Schneider, I base this conclusion on results from his computer model. Hey, are you ever going to give us a mathematical explanation for natural selection or do I have to ask this over and over?

Let’s hear your evolutionarian explanation for the origin of the DNA replicase system, or is that just one more gap in your theory? Maybe we should change the name of the “theory of evolution” to the “gap theory” since that seems to be the dominant feature in the theory.

Not quite, scientists learn to recognize patterns created by intelligent sources, whether they be archeological, radio waves or other types of patterns. Evolutionarians refuse to accept the patterns seen in genetics as having an intelligent source because it interferes with your belief system.

So not only do genes arise de novo, now you are claiming entire genomes are arising de novo? The only thing you have shown is that you post links without ever reading what they say.

To save time, I've highlighted the statements you've made which are true. It's actually quicker than pointing out the lies.

All the lies you've told have already been rebutted in this thread. Would you like to discuss any of the true statements you've made?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

All the lies you've told have already been rebutted in this thread. Would you like to discuss any of the true statements you've made?

Scatequate, you seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between the truth and a lie. Since you have said you value logic, try this on for size.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Since you pride yourself for having a PhD in mathematics, why don’t you give a mathematical description of the de novo evolution of a gene, wait, the de novo evolution of a genome. Dr Schneider’s selection process in the ev program evolves binding sites de novo, do you think his mathematical representation of selection is a valid representation of reality, Imaginary Superhero?

Why don’t you post a couple of links (which you haven’t read). You might as well throw in a couple of gifs and jpegs since that appears to be the limit of your debating skills.

Hey Paul, is this the best mathematical skills that the members of the James Randi Forum have to offer? Scatequate's contribution to this discussion is pathetic.

 

[Kotatsu]

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong.

Then do so.

It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:

Oh no! You saw through my clever ruse of admitting I haven't read the paper but am basing my opinion on the truthfulness of your statements on what has been cited earlier in this thread! How could I be so stupid! I should have known you are too smart for that kind of game! Kleinman 1 - Kotatsu 0.

Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!

Again, your conclusions do not follow from the facts of which you are aware. In my work there is also no need for riding a bicycle, telling apart Beethoven's symphonies, or being able to count to twenty. Yet these are things which I can do.

Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model.

Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.

I feel no need to inform Dr. Schneider of this separately, though.

Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.

This I will not do, as it is irrelevant for the objection I have raised previously.

Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available.

Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.

 

[kjkent1]

If you want to believe there are 10^500 (not 10^499 or 10^501) alternative universes, go for it. It sounds acceptable in any court of law.

Your sarcasm discloses your hostility, which discloses your fear of having your belief system undermined.

You have been steadfastly proposing that probability theory refutes abiogenesis (gene de novo), and you have challenged everyone to prove otherwise -- mathematically, rather than observationally.

Well, sir, your challenge has been answered. String theory and the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, mathematically defeats your conclusion that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, by showing a set of alternative universes so great that they overwhelm your improbability claim, and make abiogenesis a near certainty, rather than an improbability.

I can understand that you don't like mathematics being used against you -- but they have, and not by me -- by some of the heaviest theoretical physicists on the planet, whose theories are well grounded, reasonable and mathematically supported.

Now, it's your turn, again. Show us the mathematics supporting Genesis 1:1.

 

[kjkent1]

I don't quite understand what you mean by the anthropic principle in this context.
These parallel universes seem to be defined in a way that makes them unobservable and this explanation of the emergence of life would make its emergence the functional equivalent of a miracle.

I prefer to construct and examine theories that are not functionally miraculous. My work proposes a chemically parsimonious explanation for the emergence of life with no such overtones and I prefer that approach.

As I've already stated, proof of string theory is not completely beyond observational proof. Read Susskind's book -- I believe he proposes some tests. Most of the research in this area is heavily dependent on the CERN accelerator, which is not yet completed. When it is, all of the high energy physicists will be engaged in attempting to prove or disprove string theory.

I'm not suggesting that your work can't prove itself without the benefit of string theory, any more than I am suggesting that quantum uncertainty cannot be proved without string theory.

What I am suggesting is that scientists have their own "faith," for a lack of a better term. That faith is a generally held belief that every natural observation is susceptible to a very simple fundamental explanation which can be succinctly stated by an equation which will fit squarely on the front of a t-shirt.

This is exactly the place where Kleinman is at. It's also where Einstein was at. And, yet, for the past 80 years science has been beset with demonstrable knowledge that the universe at the quantum level is uncertain and not susceptible to such clean explanations. We all know this is true -- we just like to dismiss it from our thinking because it makes the philosophy of the scientific method seem a little hypocritical.

Nevertheless, life is here, and as kleinman suggests, it seems damn hard to explain based on plain old probability calculations. So, he opts for God as the answer.

To me, such an answer is the effective equivalent of saying, "I give up!" No more searching for answers are required, because the answer is "God did it."

Susskind, on the other hand, proposes a scientific hypothesis which admittedly still waits for more confirmation, but which fits with all existing observations and which does not require God as part of the answer.

It's uncomfortable, but it still allows for continued research, whereas God does not. If the "miracles" of the Exodus were caused by God rather than the volcanic explosion on the Island of Santorini, then why bother doing any research at all? Better to simply put on a prayer shawl and spend the day in meditation.

Susskind and string theory do not propose that you stop trying to find scientific answers to questions which match observations found in a particular locale -- just the reverse. So, your role as a scientist is secure.

I grant you that there are a few physicists who remain convinced that string theory is no more scientific than is belief in God. But, most high energy physicists find string theory and the anthropic principle a reasonable hypothesis, requiring more investigation -- just the same as most biologists find evolution a reasonable hypothesis requiring more investigation.

So, unless you simply choose to adopt God as the answer, the search for answers will continue unabated -- string theory or not.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong.

Then do so.

Read the thread lazy evolutionarian. Wait, evolutionarians don’t have to read. They can jump to conclusions without reading the arguments.

It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:

Oh no! You saw through my clever ruse of admitting I haven't read the paper but am basing my opinion on the truthfulness of your statements on what has been cited earlier in this thread! How could I be so stupid! I should have known you are too smart for that kind of game! Kleinman 1 - Kotatsu 0.

You are not proving yourself stupid, you are proving yourself to be lazy.

Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!

Again, your conclusions do not follow from the facts of which you are aware. In my work there is also no need for riding a bicycle, telling apart Beethoven's symphonies, or being able to count to twenty. Yet these are things which I can do.

Then read the thread and understand the arguments.

Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model.

Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.

I feel no need to inform Dr. Schneider of this separately, though.

Well now, since you can do mathematics, here is your opportunity to rescue Dr Schneider’s model, which Dr Schneider claims represents reality.

Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.

This I will not do, as it is irrelevant for the objection I have raised previously.

Are you sure it is something you can’t do? And how does that relate to the statement you made:

Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.

Do you think that including all the known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve without including a valid selection process will give you valid results?

Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available.

Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.

Without a valid selection process, no mathematical model will support your theory, and no selection process exists that would evolve a gene de novo.

If you want to believe there are 10^500 (not 10^499 or 10^501) alternative universes, go for it. It sounds acceptable in any court of law.

Your sarcasm discloses your hostility, which discloses your fear of having your belief system undermined.

How could I refute such wisdom you lazy, greedy Dilbert? Wait, you are not a Dilbert, because a Dilbert has some technical skills.

Well, sir, your challenge has been answered. String theory and the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, mathematically defeats your conclusion that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, by showing a set of alternative universes so great that they overwhelm your improbability claim, and make abiogenesis a near certainty, rather than an improbability.

Forget string theory and try the noodle theory, use your noodle.

I can understand that you don't like mathematics being used against you -- but they have, and not by me -- by some of the heaviest theoretical physicists on the planet, whose theories are well grounded, reasonable and mathematically supported.

I missed something here. Could you post the mathematics you are using against my arguments. Have you been studying at the scatequate school of debate? If you have, you need to post more gifs and jpegs.

 

[hammegk]

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

The good Dr.A invokes nothing beyond useless links and invective.

 

[cyborg]

The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

Yeah right hammy. He told me at least once I'd have to, "find another reason to disbelieve in God."

But feel free to live in your delusional little world.

 

[kjkent1]

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

The good Dr.A invokes nothing beyond useless links and invective.

You must be reading a different thread than me.

 

[hammegk]

Nope.

 

[kjkent1]

How could I refute such wisdom you lazy, greedy Dilbert? Wait, you are not a Dilbert, because a Dilbert has some technical skills.

Forget string theory and try the noodle theory, use your noodle.

I missed something here. Could you post the mathematics you are using against my arguments. Have you been studying at the scatequate school of debate? If you have, you need to post more gifs and jpegs.

I'm not certain why you feel the need to hurl insults, Alan. Does your God teach that sort of humility?

I've already posted a link to a number of peer-reviewed papers which explain the cosmic landscape and how it relates to anthropic principle.

If you want a layperson explanation, then read Susskind's book, "The Cosmic Landscape."

And, here's a layperson lecture from June 2006 on the subject:

http://www.nyas.org/publications/readersReport.asp?articleID=48

If you're looking for a clean mathematical formula that you can paste over the fish on the back of your car, you won't find it -- because it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that Susskind postulates 10^500 available landscapes in which carbon-based life such as ours could have evolved, and that is more than enough to convert your impossible odds into certainty -- annoying as that may be.

So unless you will need to reconcile Susskind's math with your own, before you continue to claim that your answer is the only plausible explanation.

 

[John Hewitt]

Susskind, on the other hand, proposes a scientific hypothesis which admittedly still waits for more confirmation, but which fits with all existing observations and which does not require God as part of the answer.

It's uncomfortable, but it still allows for continued research, whereas God does not. If the "miracles" of the Exodus were caused by God rather than the volcanic explosion on the Island of Santorini, then why bother doing any research at all? Better to simply put on a prayer shawl and spend the day in meditation.

Susskind and string theory do not propose that you stop trying to find scientific answers to questions which match observations found in a particular locale -- just the reverse. So, your role as a scientist is secure.

I grant you that there are a few physicists who remain convinced that string theory is no more scientific than is belief in God. But, most high energy physicists find string theory and the anthropic principle a reasonable hypothesis, requiring more investigation -- just the same as most biologists find evolution a reasonable hypothesis requiring more investigation.

So, unless you simply choose to adopt God as the answer, the search for answers will continue unabated -- string theory or not.

I don't know enough about detailed theories in high energy physics to say much but parallel universes seem untestable to me. I find it hard to see how a few tracks in a bubble chamber could convince anyone about them.

I looked up the anthropic principle and I rather object to it. I find it hard to articulate why - but I do. I think I would rather talk of another principle, something analogous to Vygotsky's educational ideas on "zones of proximal development." His idea was that one extends knowledge from zones one already understands into zones that are proximate to those zones of knowledge you already grasp. My extension to his ideas, which one might call "the rule of proximate explanation" would state that epistemic explanations should be constructed from zones of knowledge that are logically proximate to the subject to be explained.

High energy physics is very far removed from biology and, in my opinion, explanations constructed from it will never be compelling. It seems to me that the areas of knowledge that are closest to the problem of the origins of biology are astronomy, insofar as it bears on conditions on early earth, some parts of physics, mostly classical physics since few *very* high energy processes occur on a planet, and chemistry - the last being the most immediately relevant.

String theory, quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, particle physics, relativity, The God Particle - I am sure they are all very interesting subjects. For all I know, they may all be totally true but I just don't see them as potential contributors to a theory of the origin of life.