lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, that's odd, if I see a problem then it's worthless? But I agree that it could be improved.

No, order of connecting the amino acids in a chain is what I meant. It seems he left out that part, you can't just connect these 32 amino acids in any old order to make your protein, i.e. taking the last amino acid and putting it at the start: "ERMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVG" won't do...

Apparently talk.origins missed the boat. And Francis Crick hasn't seen these estimates? I expect he has, and is not convinced by them.

Yes, that was exactly the point, because the most viable solution starts with generating proteins from scratch, as in the talk.origins calculation, and that is extraordinarily improbable (that's actually an understatement). Q.E.D.

Well, I disagree with them and told you why. You now need to show me how my responses to your criteria are mistaken.

I'm actually suggesting it is quite possible! And you can do it, and I dare you (or someone else) to try! We really don't have to argue about this...

Regards,
Lee

Dryhad

Not from where I'm standing. It may be theoretically possible, but the long list of qualifiers means that the prophecy is almost self-fulfilling.

I lack both the time and resources (and, for that matter, the motivation). I wouldn't mind seeing someone try, though.

Naked Ape

We really don't have to argue about this ... Francis Crick hasn't seen these estimates, and is not convinced by them, he is dead.

John A. Broussard

We seem to, though--ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

When are you going to finally understand that a forever prophecy is utterly meaningless?

Dryhad

Well, it's meaningless for the purposes of proving the validity of the prophet. It has some meaning if people who already accept the validity of the prophet care one jot about Babylon.

John A. Broussard

Good point.

For lee it has meaning.

For anyone concerned about rational thinking, it has none.

whiskey the hedonist

No. If you agree that it doesn't actually describe the origin of life (which you did) than it is worthless. Your calculation as it stands has no meaning, so come up with one that actually describes the one and only possible pathway to life, show me that it is generally accepted in the biology community that this is the one and only possible pathway to life, and I'll accept that your calculation has any meaning at all.

Until then, we have both agreed that your calculation, being about nothing important, is worthless.

So, you have one number. Musgrave has one number. The numbers are different. You claim musgrave made an elementary mistake that has stood, unopposed and uncritiqued, for 7 years on a popular web site. This seems unlikely, but nonetheless, giving you the benefit of the doubt, there is a conflict that has not been resolved between these two points of view.

Therefore, your contention that the matter is settled, and in your favor, is not supported by the facts.

No, you haven't answered my question about these prophecies. Again, the question is: Why are you allowed to have the Tyre prophecy mean absolutely anything you want (which you have agreed you can) and I cannot do the same with Babylon? What is the difference?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Um, this is much less than what Babylon was before. How is this then, so difficult? Are we really that much less capable than these Babylonians?

Me too! It would be most enlightening...

When you show me how rebuilding or reinhabiting Babylon would not overthrow a prophecy that insisted that it would never be rebuilt or reinhabited!

Well, I would hold that it might describe the origin of life. How do we get to building proteins from codons? It has to happen sometime, and it's difficult to put the foundation in once the building is up. Which, by the way, makes starting life as we know it by natural processes, even more improbable...

You could resolve it by pointing out how my critique is in error, however!

It is, though, if my critique is correct! My view is supported by the very example trying to disprove it, that's pretty strong evidence...

Well, I would not of course hold that I can have a prophecy mean anything I want. I have given you my reasons for my interpretation of the Tyre prophecy, and to advance the discussion, you will need to now address them.

Regards,
Lee

whiskey the hedonist

1: Unless it neccesarily describes the origins of life, it isn't worth anything. You admit that it doesn't, therefore it is worthless.

2: I did. You made a 'claim' that he 'forgot' the order but you haven't demonstrated that the order is important the way you say it is, that it isn't incorporated into the first equation, or that your math is even relevant to the actual argument in the article, which it isn't.

There are two hypothesis here: 1) The majority of biologists are unable to spot simple errors in calculations and don't understand elementary statistics. Otherwise, they would understand that abiogenesis is impossible. 2) Lee merril is working from faulty assumptions about statistics and biology.

We know that lee merrill knows very little about biology and chemistry. We know that Lee Merrill thinks that the CURRENT opinion of dead men is relevant to issues, and we know that Lee Merril quotes information theorists as authorities on biology. I think that Lee is obviously a lousy source.

Gosh, which hypothesis has more merit, lee?

3: You agreed with the statement: "There is no concievable set of circumstances that could invalidate the Tyre prophecy."

This means that the Tyre "prophesy" means whatever you want it to, to suit circumstances.

Why am I not allowed to do the same with babylon? You have not answered that question. If you have, please point me to the post where you did.

John A. Broussard

Go ahead and do anything you want to do with Babylon.
Lee has fully exploited the issue, made it as meaningless as any forever prophecy could possibly be and has consistently shifted the goal posts upon any refutation of his claims.

It will get you nowhere, but do treat Babylon as you please.