"Did Life Evolve" program..

[fool]

straw men are fun
let me see if I can make one
if I put the population of people on the earth
5,000,000,000
into my calculator and devide by two
as in a world wide coin toss tournament
I come up with the winner having won 33 coin tosses in a row
and what's more amazing is that the person he won the last one against had won 32 in a row!
what are the odds?!?!?
so here's what you can do at home
you and your buddy toss coins by your selves until you have both beat the coin 32 times in a row and the play each other
see how many tries it takes you and let us know
and by the way please ignore the fact that there will be winners
please ignore the fact that the winners prove that it is possible
just cocentrate on the coins flipping

isn't anyone going to burn my strawman?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

http://www.kgov.com/evolve/science.html

Is there anything wrong with this page?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Sorry, fool ... I'm out of matches.... :chuckle:

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

http://www.kgov.com/evolve/science.html

Is there anything wrong with this page?

The biggest problem is the argument by analogy--any analogy. It does not matter how good an analogy is used, any argument by analogy is a "weak" argument--because the analogous test cannot verify the original hypothesis.

Case in point: better yet, another analogy! :chuckle:

Let's say I'm talking about baking a cake ... but I'm all out of flour. Now, I can walk you through the steps while I'm making my cake out of concrete (only thing I have available), but concrete acts differently than flour. I may come up with a wonderful round shape that I can slap some icing on, but it's not going to behave the same as the flour.

It's a similar thing here--Bob's got a straight random program going on that sorts letters. But letters in a pseudo-random computer program are not going to act the same as proteins in a primordial soup. The analogy looks good on the surface, but the two tests do not behave the same.

Justin

 

[One Eyed Jack]

The biggest problem is the argument by analogy--any analogy. It does not matter how good an analogy is used, any argument by analogy is a "weak" argument--because the analogous test cannot verify the original hypothesis.

Case in point: better yet, another analogy! :chuckle:

Let's say I'm talking about baking a cake ... but I'm all out of flour. Now, I can walk you through the steps while I'm making my cake out of concrete (only thing I have available), but concrete acts differently than flour. I may come up with a wonderful round shape that I can slap some icing on, but it's not going to behave the same as the flour.

It's a similar thing here--Bob's got a straight random program going on that sorts letters. But letters in a pseudo-random computer program are not going to act the same as proteins in a primordial soup. The analogy looks good on the surface, but the two tests do not behave the same.

Justin

These problems are pointed out in the link.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

These problems are pointed out in the link.

Actually, the problems are mentioned in passing ... but Bob still bases a "strong" conclusion on a weak argument. "Many honest students of life will look at the results and realize that if random chance cannot get a simple alphabet right, it could never get life started." Jack, that's not "science" ... it's not even close to a good test. That's rhetoric.

Justin

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Not everything can be tested. In a situation like that, an analogy is the best thing you have to illustrate a basic principle. I think that's all that Bob is doing.

 

[fool]

Not everything can be tested. In a situation like that, an analogy is the best thing you have to illustrate a basic principle. I think that's all that Bob is doing.

with prizes?

 

[Johnny]

an analogy is the best thing you have to illustrate a basic principle. I think that's all that Bob is doing.

But Bob's analogy is completely irrelevant to the point where it can't even be called analogous.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Not everything can be tested. In a situation like that, an analogy is the best thing you have to illustrate a basic principle. I think that's all that Bob is doing.

Well, Jack, the problem is that making a strong conclusion on the basis of a weak argument is ... not exactly honest. That's why I used the term rhetoric: it's a great way to win an argument, because it looks good and sounds logical. But it's not a way to verify fact.

Justin

 

[Stratnerd]

But the basic principle doesn't work either..

1. It's an anology, as we all know, so it's already irrelevent. Certainly you can do better and people have by looking at amino acid polymerization

2. The assumption (unstated but I'll take a stab) is that a proteins had something to do with the formulation of life. If they don't then the entire exercise is pointless.

3. Another assumption is that the protein is only functional with a perfect sequence since we don't know the role of this hypothetical protein we don't know if it needs to be.

4. Is the formation of letters anything like polymerization? If not then the test is misleading (just restating the first but I'm tired)

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Well, Jack, the problem is that making a strong conclusion on the basis of a weak argument is ... not exactly honest.

You don't really think this argument is the only thing creationists base their conclusions on, do you? It's simply a way to illustrate a basic principle.

That's why I used the term rhetoric: it's a great way to win an argument, because it looks good and sounds logical. But it's not a way to verify fact.

I don't think it was ever a presented as a way to verify a fact. At least I never got that impression.

 

[Stratnerd]

It's simply a way to illustrate a basic principle.

which is? given that the "test" is irrelevent and misleading, what is the heuristic value?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

You don't really think this argument is the only thing creationists base their conclusions on, do you? It's simply a way to illustrate a basic principle.

Jack, when Bob says "Many honest students of life will look at the results and realize that if random chance cannot get a simple alphabet right, it could never get life started," then I assume that he intends this argument to be conclusive.

And the problem is ... a lot of Creation Science I've seen is based on similar analogies. Humphreys, as an example, is either a complete ignoramus (which I do not believe), or he is completely unprincipaled (a position I've forced to agree with, despite my wishes). Sarfati is even worse, using insult and lies to conceal the gaps in his arguments.

In Bob's case, Jack, he simply does not have the training to make a valid analogy. That's not dishonesty--heck, it takes a certainl level of knowledge in biology to even know that there is a problem with the analogy, much less what the problem is.

I don't think it was ever a presented as a way to verify a fact. At least I never got that impression.

:shrug: That is the impression I get when I read the page. Bob is presenting his experiment as a verified fact--"proof" that if the alphabet trick doesn;t work, the primordial soup model won't either.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Jack, when Bob says "Many honest students of life will look at the results and realize that if random chance cannot get a simple alphabet right, it could never get life started," then I assume that he intends this argument to be conclusive.

I don't get that impression. It seems to me that by saying "many" he allows that some "honest students of life" may come to a different conclusion.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I don't get that impression. It seems to me that by saying "many" he allows that some "honest students of life" may come to a different conclusion.

:shrug: Jack, I honestly hope that you're correct ... but at the same time, I sincerely believe you are not.

I'm going to try asking him (assuming, of course, he has time to answer the post--I know he's a busy man).

Justin

 

[One Eyed Jack]

:shrug: Jack, I honestly hope that you're correct ... but at the same time, I sincerely believe you are not.

I'm going to try asking him (assuming, of course, he has time to answer the post--I know he's a busy man).

Justin

Link.

 

[On Fire]

Life doesn't evolve by random permutations and it has no direction or goal. Whatever works best is the route it will take. Further, successful mutations become more likely to appear in future generations, and thus, complexity is built one step at a time, not by random guesses.

Do unsuccessful mutaions mean an end to that species?

 

[Stratnerd]

unless that individual is the last of that species, probably not. it may mean the end of that individual however.

 

[Johnny]

it may mean the end of that individual however.

Yep.