Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: creationism topics
Message-ID: <1386@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 12:23:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.1386
Posted: Fri Sep 28 12:23:14 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 03:41:04 EDT
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland
Lines: 112

> Fred Hoyle, who in his book "Evolution from Space" calculates the probability
> of life evolving on earth at 1 out of 10^40,000.

What is this?  The same bogus "probability" argument has been around
the net for some time.  The only accurate way to find the probability
of SOME form of PRIMITIVE life forming from nonliving matter is by
experiment (unfortunately the experiment take 10^9 years to run).
Please stop arguing by proxy!  Give the reasoning itself. If it is
fallacious, no one should be convinced because some famous person
believes in it.  This goes double in Hoyle's case; for the last 10
years his theories have tended to be complicated, bizarre, interesting,
and wrong.

> >It seems that this difference of viewpoint goes a long way toward seeing why
> >the Creationist will respond with anger, rather than understanding, when he
> >is confronted with reality.
> Gee, and just last week I pointed out that on the net it was
> *evolutionists* who were calling creationists:  officers of the
> inquisition, a social holocaust, one of the greatest threats that
> civilization faces, metaphysical totalitarianism, Big Brother, Nazis,
> etc.

Of course we all deplore the name calling on the net, don't we?

> It seems to me that it is the evolutionists responding with anger
> at reality, not the other way around.

I scream you scream we all scream. What does it prove?

> >even if we discovered within biological systems some operation
> >distant from the state of equilibrium our research would still
> >leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest
> >of organisms.

EVEN IF ! ????
Try not eating for a while if you think we are at equilibrium!
You mean the simplest EXISTING organisms. Thats not what we are talking
about.

Yes I know you were quoting someone else, but you shouldn't use an
argument that you arn't prepaired to defend.

> 1 A steady net production of enormous quantities of nucleotides and amino
>   acids on the hypothetical primative earth by the simple interaction of
>   raw energy and simple gases.
> 2 A steady net production of enormous quantities of energy-rich organic mole-
>   cules to supply the required energy.
> 3 The combination, in enormous quantities, of the nucleotides to form
>   polymers.

These may have been assumptions once, but now they are experimental
results.  If you simulate the conditions of the early atmosphere, these
three things DO HAPPEN.  You don't even have to wait 10^7 years!
Assumptions about its composition are unimportant as long as it
contains no free oxygen. Free oxygen is not found on any of the other
(i.e.  dead) planets.

> 4 The selective formation of homopolymers (such as poly-A and poly-T) rather
>   than the formation of mixed polymers of random sequences.

Life can't happen without this? You just threw this in to make it
seem hard.

> 5 The establishment of an autocatalytic cycle.

This is by definition necessary for the the (natural) origin of life
because it is the same thing.

> 6 Errors in the formation of the polymers producing a new polymer which
>   directs the synthesis of a primitive protein enzyme.

Errors? If the polymers are random, what is an error?
Remember it only has to a VERY primitive enzyme, and it dosn't have to
be produced efficiently. Remember the first life would have no
competition.

> 7 The primitive protein enzyme catalyzes the formation of both itself and the
>   nucleotide polymer (DNA).

RNA enzymes are possible. Such an enzyme would only have to produce
itself. (from a pre-existing template (itself))

> 8 The above molecules somehow manage to spontaneously separate themselves
>   from the rest of the world and concentrate into condensed systms
>   coordinated in time and space.

You don't believe this is possible? Do you believe in crystals?
Remember that "Somehow" is a very broad word.

> (ref: Dr. Gish) Note that all of the improbable assumptions must hold; if
> even *one* is wrong the system fails.

No. Only 5 and 8 are really necessary. The rest can be replaced by other
mechanisms.

> Actually, what we have here is a prediction by creationists, that
> kinds most likely share a unique common genetic characteristic, one
> that further genetic research into understanding the DNA program should
> reveal.

Very good.  You made a prediction!  Too bad all the DNA research done
so far points in the other direction.  From the characteristics of DNA
it seems that all life on earth is of the same "kind".  You can even
trace the family tree with more accuracy than from morphology or the
much maligned "fossil record".  Predictions are good, but you have to
predict the results of past experiments too.  If I were in your shoes I
would use the scientific method and modify my theory to fit the
experimental data.

			Ralph Hartley
			rlh@cvl
			siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh