[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:01:30 +0000 (GMT)

Jack L
From Jack Lewis Wed Sep 12 18:10:56 2007
If you think that the article about abiogenesis is merely an anecdote then you 
clearly have no idea what evolution is about. If you want more information 
about what creationists say about the 2nd L. O. T. check out this site 
http://www.icr.org/article/86/ its not too long an article. [ What is 2nd L. O. 
T.? ]
I was in a bit of a hurry and I'd forgotten about this item. It is not a simple 
anecdote, but it is a simplistic attempt to disprove an incredibly complex 
proposition with a few references to carbon atoms and right and left 
handedness. Then we find this -
It has been found that the proteins in living cells are almost all left-handed. 
It would be lethal to a cell, by preventing metabalism, if a right-handed 
molecule was inserted.
Can you reconcile this obvious contradiction?
Yes I'm aware that creationists have, to their own satisfaction, proved that 
many things they don't want to believe are impossible. Considering that 
creationists once held sway and that all fell into line behind this banner, one 
would have to observe that today, entrophy is alive and thriving within their 
From Jack Lewis Wed Sep 12 20:47:41 2007 (Subject: John Rennie)
As you requested I just looked at one of the points in John Rennie's answers to 
creationists (I have read this before) and I would comment on this particular 
I didn't ask you to look at any point -- my request was that you look at Point 
9. I explained why I asked that you look at Point 9. Instead you have chosen to 
comment on Point 8. OK -- I'll respond to this.
Have you done much programming Jack? Writing of computer programs I mean? You 
see, from your answer, one would conclude that you really have no idea what is 
involved in writing programs designed to analyse data and to form conclusions 
from these results then to iteratively use these steps to arrive at a limit to 
the exercise. On the contrary, one would conclude that you think that entering 
telephone numbers into an automatic dialling device -- such as your mobile 
phone -- is an example of programming.
Concerning how the decision to place a letter in its 'correct' place is made, I 
suspect the phrase "...(in effect, selecting for phrases more like 
Hamlet's)..." is significant. I think the task went something like this -
Give the program (the set of instructions) access to Shakeaspear's play Hamlet.
Take a random arrangement of the 13 given letters and search through the play 
for any similarities in structure between the current arrangement and the play.
If any letters in this string fall in the same relative position in the play, 
preserve those letters in those positions for each found partial match and try 
another random arrangement of the remaining letters for all partial matches, 
then repeat the process. Note that there may well be many arrangements which 
will match many groupings in the play.
The truth is, I don't understand the task fully so it's difficult to determine 
what constitutes the exit point for the program. I'm almost certain that you 
don't understand the problem very well either, because if you did you would not 
have suggested writing the program to find it in one step. It is likely to my 
mind, that the writer forgot to mention that the order of the letters given was 
not the sequence as given, but perhaps the same letters in alphabetical order 
and the task was to find a phrase in the play which used just those letters. 
One should always be wary of assuming that the speaker is a fool -- the problem 
may just be that you don't understand what he is saying. There is nothing 
special about 336 -- it is just an indication of the efficiency of the program.
Finally, there is your suggestion that your impressions are closer to how 
evolution works (or in your case -- would work) than those of the writer. Well 
this again indicates that you don't understand the problem. There is 
practically nothing in the universe that is truly random, from the orbits of 
electrons within atoms to the spacing of galaxies to the distribution of energy 
within the electromagmnetic spectrum. If you understand these things, you can 
formulate rules which help you to unravel very complex problems. An example I 
have used before, the mapping of the structure of insulin which involved 
possibilities numbering 10^516 was solved in just eight years. What the writer 
was offering at this juncture, was not an "...explanation for evolution...". he 
was only addressing one tiny facet of the problem and indicating that raw 
probability is nowhere near to being the obstacle that creationists are wont to 
The searching for patterns within text probably has some similarities with the 
way various elements and compounds preferably associate, bearing in mind the 
conditions under which these combinations take place. Exploring the patterns 
which emerge from, to the ignorant (not an insinuation -- correct technical 
usage), apparently random stirrings and settlings can be very instructive.
I'm still interested in your impressions of why the second law of 
thermodynamics proves the impossibility of evolution.
Paul D

Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: