NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/origins/14381

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.7 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!tlode
From: [e-mail] (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <H4LDuB4w165w@kalki33>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:56:40 GMT
Lines: 67


kalki33![e-mail]
        (Kalki "Reality is irrelevant" Dasa) writes:

] [e-mail] (trygve lode) writes:
]
] > In article <80T3TB15w165w@kalki33> kalki33![e-mail] writes:
] > >
] > >The differential equations which represent the known forces of physics
] > >can all be written very briefly, and an algorithm which will solve them
] > >to an arbitrary degree of accuracy can be specified with a few pages of
] > >code
] >
] > Great!  Personally, I think this is lots more interesting than even
] > probabilistic "refutations" of evolution/abiogenesis/whatever.  Perhaps
] > you all could post a brief differential equation or two that would fully
] > represent the strong and weak nuclear forces and then present a simple
] > algorithm that will calculate to an arbitrary degree of accuracy the
] > waveform of a molecule.
]
] Oh? So your point is that there are certain "forces" in physics whose
] nature is not fully known, and for which the equations of motion are not
] fully known? Is this your point? If so, then we certainly agree with
] you. There is no complete Grand Unified Theory.

Nope; my point is that you said, "The differential equations which
represent the known forces of physics can all be written very
briefly...." and, since this implies you know a few very interesting
differential equations that I don't, I'd like to know what these brief
differential equations are.

] Tell us, then, what role the strong and weak nuclear forces are supposed
] to play in abiogenesis. Are nuclear reactions going on in the primordial
] soup?

Well, not as such, however, natural "nuclear reactors" have been
discovered that might have provided temperature differentials; products
of radioactive decay can have mutagenic effects; and (as someone else
already pointed out) the nonconservation of parity under weak
interactions is a possible source of chirality in nature.  However, none
of this has the slightest relevance to what I was saying.

] As far as we know no one has yet proposed a possible mechanism for
] abiogenesis that involves the nuclear forces in any way. If this is the
] case, and if the nuclear forces do indeed play a crucial role in
] abiogenesis, then, it would seem that there is less justification than
] ever for supposing that abiogenesis occurred, since it is now dependent
] on an unknown set of laws.

All right, we'll disregard nuclear forces for the moment.  But, as long
as we're back to the subject of abiogenesis, how do you feel about the
various "clay world" hypotheses, the autocatalysis of RNA, or any of the
other abiogenesis theories that those of us who don't share your cestode
infestation find plausible?  Could you be so kind as to provide a
rigorous exegesis of the probability of each of the currently proposed
models (we'll assume indepence for the moment) as well as all models
that have not yet been proposed?

Trygve   (Are viroids conscious?  How about IBM punchcards?)

        -------------------------------------------------------
       |  Don't forget to chant:   Bang-a-bang-bang            |
       |                           Ding-a-ding-ding            |
       |                           Blue moon, blue moon,       |
       |                           Blue moon....               |
        -------------------------------------------------------