Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Design "Argument"

Expand Messages
  • Richard Wein
    From: /bin/pub/source/ash ... publications. ... compare ... analogy. ... This is just saying is so! . You haven t explained why
    Message 1 of 60 , Nov 1, 1999
      From: /bin/pub/source/ash <alonso@...>
      >
      >
      >On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Richard Wein wrote:
      >
      >> From: "Richard Wein" <tich@...>
      >>
      >> >From: /bin/pub/source/ash <alonso@...>
      >> >
      >> >> From: "Richard Wein" <tich@...>
      >>
      >> <snip>
      >>
      >> >Chance and regularity:
      >> >It just so happened that it was a coincidence that the two tables were
      >> >identical.
      >> >
      >> >Design:
      >> >The psychologist deliberately copied the two tables into the
      publications.
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >Both can be falsified. But since the first choice has small probability,
      >> >namely , one in a trillion, Design was the only reasonable
      >> >choice.Therefore the psychologist resigned rather then defend such
      >> >probability.
      >>
      >> The argument works when we're talking about copying. But the analogy with
      >> design is a very poor one. In the case of copying, you can compare the
      >> alleged copy with the original. In the case of design, what can you
      compare
      >> the alleged design with?
      >>
      >
      >
      >No the argument works on all cases when trying to draw a design inference.
      >As seen by this analogy. I can draw plenty of analogies like this from all
      >areas of science.
      >
      >
      >> Argument by analogy is always suspect, and this isn't even a good
      analogy.
      >>
      >
      >It is indeed a good analogy, how a design inference can be proved or
      >falsified.

      This is just saying "is so!". You haven't explained why it's a good analogy,
      or explained away my reason why it's a bad analogy (that there's nothing to
      compare the alleged design with).

      And an argument from analogy is never conclusive, only indicative (at best).
      It's effectively saying: A is like B (but not identical), therefore what's
      true for A is true for B. It may not be.

      <snip>

      >Hehehe sure. But the concept remains, you tried, as is done in many fields
      >of science,to falsify the design theory, which is healthy in a good
      >scientific model.

      I didn't try to falsify the design theory. I refuted your claim that the
      design theory can be falsified. Big difference!

      Richard Wein (Tich)
      See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
    • Alonso, Nelson
      ... From: Mark [mailto:spark@unm.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:44 PM To: creationism@onelist.com Subject: Re: [creationism] Re: Design Argument
      Message 60 of 60 , Nov 10, 1999
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mark [mailto:spark@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:44 PM
        To: creationism@onelist.com
        Subject: Re: [creationism] Re: Design "Argument"


        From: Mark <spark@...>


        > > > Actually they are not quiet. THey have been very vocal on
        homchirality.
        > > >
        > > > The reason is Many researchers are convinced, as I am, that the search
        for
        > > > homochirality on Wirtanen will be a waste of effort and
        mone.Unfortunately
        > > > for enthusiasts of the imaginative
        > > > homochiral-molecules-carried-to-us-on-comets hypothesis, meteorites of
        > > > cometary origin contain only racemic mixtures of amino acids.
        > > > Astrophysically speaking, conditions are virtually the same today as
        they
        > > > were in the past. As Scripps Institute chemist Jeffrey Bada observed,
        "If
        > > > the earth were seeded with homochirals in the past, we should see it
        > > > happening today."
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Which is why Ross pointed out
        > > > "Particularly telling, was the question
        > > > posed during the Homochirality Session, in which, a conference
        participant
        > > > asked, "Why do we need homochirality for the origin of life?"
        > >
        > >
        > > That is a good question, the answer is probably that we may not need
        > > homochirality since there are many examples of proteins that are not
        > > homochiral, for example gramacidin.
        > >
        > > But I don't know why this homochirality is a problem. I've always just
        > > assumed that there may have been an achiral catalyst who's property was
        > > such that it can only polymerize like-handed enantiomers. Don't
        > > molecules like HCN do this?
        > >
        > > Since this molecule is linear it is achiral. But because of steric
        > > interactions I don't think that it can polymerize L's with D's, but
        > > only L's with L's, or D's with D's.
        > >
        > > Maybe HCN doesn't do this, but surely something does. If it does, or
        > > if there are simple molecules that do this then there is no problem
        > > with homochirality.
        > >
        >
        > HCN in and of itself is not enough to produce organic molecules that can
        > converto into useful biological molecules. For example, in the presense of
        > water, HCN is quickly converted to formic acid through a formamide
        > intermediate.
        >
        >
        > Nelson

        Mark:
        HCN may not be enough to produce organic molecules into useful biological
        molecules but it (or something with similar properties) in a system
        that was producing racemic proteins could act as a racemase.

        That would solve most of the difficulties with the enantiomers forming.
        It increases the probability of homochiral molecules to about 1/2 from
        1/(2^n)

        Alonso:
        The problem is all experiments have failed to demonstrate any such
        favoritism. Rather, they have uncovered the reason for a lack of favoritism.
        The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that even collections of
        molecules which begin with some favoritism will degrade to racemic mixtures.
        This is more then enough to stymie research and just drop it all together.



        Community email addresses:
        Post message: creationism@onelist.com
        Subscribe: creationism-subscribe@onelist.com
        Unsubscribe: creationism-unsubscribe@onelist.com
        List owner: creationism-owner@onelist.com

        Shortcut URL to this page:
        http://www.onelist.com/community/creationism
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.