Rabbi nails it: Origin of life theory is a demolition derby

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 13, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Just listen:

The history of scientific endeavor to discover a naturalistic origin of life reads like a laboratory version of a demolition derby. A researcher roars into the arena to propose a new theory and is summarily rammed and demolished by another theory driven by its respective theoretician who in turn is rammed and demolished by the next eager contestant. A few examples for the uninitiated reader:

Just hope your government doesn’t oblige you to pay, unless that is the sort of entertainment that interests you.

Comments

It’s like a spelling error on an otherwise impressive resume.
Not even close.cantor_{October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PST}

Yes, Cantor. It's like a spelling error on an otherwise impressive resume'. See also http://grammarist.com/usage/said/.Querius_{October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PST}

In spite of all that has come before, I am still no better at exponents and logarithms.
When a mathematical function cannot be approximated with a clever expression, such as the Lanczos formula introduced in Section 2.4.1, one must resort to computing that function using the integral, the recurrence formula, or the series expansion. All these algorithms have one central feature in common: the repetition of the same computation until some convergence criterion is met. Such repetitive computation is called iteration. - Object-Oriented Implementation of Numerical Methods
Am I even in the ballpark? Probably not, lol.Mung_{October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PST}

“Said” people or “aforementioned” people?
"said" and "aforementioned" are synonyms in this context, so it's not clear what you meant. Anyway, those few of us who care about math cringe when we see a perfectly good argument needlessly tainted, opening the door to ridicule by ideologues. There's no reason or excuse for it.cantor_{October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PST}

6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] * antilog 778 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
I see you found and fixed the typo (replaced + with *). For completeness, here it is with the missing step included: 6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125 + 778] = antilog[0.15125] * antilog[778]cantor_{October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST}

PS: Let me simply post: 6^1,000 –> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way? lg [6^1,000] = 1,000 * lg 6 = 778.15125 = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778 Taking antilogs: 6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] * antilog 778 = 1.41661 * 10^778. Hope that helps. (It can be expanded to fractional numbers by in effect converting these into sci notation, or if you recall, the old Bar-Z plus .abcd . . . in logged form.) The material issue is that the config space implied is well beyond the blind search capacity of the observed cosmos. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PST}

C: At this point, pardon, but your exchange looks a tad serially tangential relative to the material issue. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PST}

Heh. A bit overstated, IMHO, but then so are most Darwinist claims.
But it does alter how many people — especially those who disagree on ideological grounds — will perceive his point, and open him to criticism from said people which could easily be avoided were he to have the wisdom to have his paper vetted in those areas where he is not fully competent.
"Said" people or "aforementioned" people? ;-) Yes, I agree. The effort should have been made, and the correction gracefully accepted.Querius_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PST}

I think a better analogy would be: . Q: What is the temperature of the sun at its core? A: 15 million degrees. Q: Is that in degrees Centigrade or degrees Kelvin? A: What's a "Kelvin" ?cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PST}

I think a better analogy would be: Q: What is the temperature of the sun at its core? A: 15 million degrees. Q: Is that in degrees Centigrade or degrees Kelvin? A: What's a "Kelvin" ?cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PST}

Reminds me of something. :-) Q: What is the temperature of the sun at its core? A: 15 million degrees. Q: Is that in degrees Centigrade or degrees Kelvin? A: It doesn't matter.Querius_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PST}

I see you spotted a case with four not three 0?s. Ouch.
There's another one hiding in plain sight.cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PST}

C: 1 --> I see you spotted a case with four not three 0's. Ouch. 2 --> I had hoped not to have to be more explicit about "6^1000 = 10^x" which is looking for a log value x. I think you were maybe fishing for 6^1000 = p * 10^q (with p between 1 and 9.999 . . . ], and solving for p and q. Which is where what I did I think -- per experience -- helps people see a bit more clearly by explicitly going through logs: 1000 lg 6 = q + lg p, q being the whole part and lg p the fractional. KFkairosfocus_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PST}

KF wrote at post 30:
6^1,000 –> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way? lg [6^1,000] = 1,0000 * lg 6 = 778.15125 = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778 Taking antilogs: 6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] + antilog 778 = 1.41661 * 10^778.
There's a serious typo in the above. Can you find it?cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PST}

6^1,000 –> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way? lg [6^1,000] = 1,0000 * lg 6 = 778.15125 = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778 Taking antilogs: 6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] + antilog 778 = 1.41661 * 10^778. Hope that helps.
Not really. It's already been posted. See posts 2, 3, and 4cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

F/N: 6^1,000 --> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way? lg [6^1,000] = 1,0000 * lg 6 = 778.15125 = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778 Taking antilogs: 6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] + antilog 778 = 1.41661 * 10^778. Hope that helps. (It can be expanded to fractional numbers by in effect converting these into sci notation, or if you recall, the old Bar-Z plus .abcd . . . in logged form.) KF PS: Yes, people often do pounce on minor errors in arithmetic etc to dismiss what they are inclined to dismiss, ignoring the concept of materiality. PPS: The real OOL challenge is actually not primarily probabilistic, but a sampling/search resources vs space of possibilities challenge. FSCO/I sharply constrains possible configs, in a context where the range of raw possibilities is vast [starting of order 10^150 - 10^300], swamping search resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos. It is not possible to search more than a vanishingly small fraction of the config space so if the search is blind, we have no good reason to expect to find the sort of very special clusters we see in the world of life. Unless the materialists can show empirically that his is not the case, we have no reason to take their OOL scenarios seriously. Hence, the most significant single thing in the good Rabbi's article, the cluster of clips form the practitioners above, which shows that they are nowhere near a serious answer to the challenge.kairosfocus_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PST}

The method I used to convert 6^1000 to a mantissa and an exponent of 10 involves irrational numbers. If you have a better way, please post it.
I'll save you the trouble. If you have access to a computer that can do arithmetic on rational numbers a thousand digits in length, here's a simple 2-step trial-and-error method for doing the calculation without using irrational numbers: 1) Compute (6^1000)/(10^N), varying N until the resulting fraction has the same number of digits in the numerator as in the denominator, and the numerator is greater than the denominator. You will eventually find that N=778, like so: 891073969584967200937203740142[484 digits]082813054936469179817529442304 divided by 629018434530970049631546533532[484 digits]387723640538752079010009765625 2) 778 is now your desired power of 10, and 891/629 is your (rational) mantissa Suit yourself, but I prefer the irrational method.cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST}

Yet again, we remain in agreement. For the reasons you point out, people should strive to not make mistakes. And for the reasons I point out, your objection does nothing to alter the author's point.Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PST}

your pointing out of the author’s calculation does nothing to alter his point.
But it does alter how many people -- especially those who disagree on ideological grounds -- will perceive his point, and open him to criticism from said people which could easily be avoided were he to have the wisdom to have his paper vetted in those areas where he is not fully competent.cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PST}

Good, we are in agreement, People should try not to make mistakes, even though they all will; and your pointing out of the author's calculation does nothing to alter his point.Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PST}

an irrational digression,
Guilty as charged. The method I used to convert 6^1000 to a mantissa and an exponent of 10 involves irrational numbers. If you have a better way, please post it.
is launched into by way of an ad hominem
What ad hominem are you referring to?
You should, at least, have conceded that the point was taken by you, before giving us the benefit of your footling digression and appraisal of UB’s competence to make an essentially correct(!) probability argument
Please translate the above into English.cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PST}

The capacity to make a mistake is shared by all people
I can certainly agree with that re-worded version of your original statement.
I also pointed out that your objection doesn’t alter the author’s point.
I never said it "altered" his point. You are arguing over uncontested territory.cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PST}

Cantor,
Unless you meant that in some arcane way, as a general principle it is certainly false.
The capacity to make a mistake is shared by all people, as you previously demonstrated your #2, #3, and #4 above. As for Averick himself, he was probably multi-tasking too.
It doesn’t change the “issue” but it changes the force of his argument.
Cantor, let’s take this hike and make a day of it. Bring a bottle of water and a can of beans, and we’ll have lunch along the way. Cantor replies, “But Biped, that’ “hike” is Annapurna … it’s a good two to three weeks of treacherous terrain ... and probably another two weeks of acclimation”. Okay, bring two cans.
I was arguing that due diligence with simple math is important when writing an article in which probability calculations are foundational. Can you agree with that
I have already agreed with that, without reservation. I also pointed out that your objection doesn’t alter the author’s point. As for being “foundational”, 1.42*10^778 remains unfathomably larger than 10^80. Your acknowledgement of this fact isn’t necessary, but would have added some needed balance to your objection. If your only point is that care should be taken not to make mistakes, then you are arguing over uncontested territory. :|Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PST}

'The probability argument the author was making was foundational to the whole article. If the author does not understand simple math, and doesn’t even know he doesn’t understand it, it makes the author look careless and/or unqualified to use a probability argument.' When the subject under discussion is precisely addressed, Cantor, and an irrational digression, because strictly irrelevant, is launched into by way of an ad hominem, it does not reflect well on the thought-processes of the person in question, namely, your good self. You should, at least, have conceded that the point was taken by you, before giving us the benefit of your footling digression and appraisal of UB's competence to make an essentially correct(!) probability argument. It rather reminds me of a great aunt of mine - I won't speak ill of her, but it's not difficult to draw a conclusion about her character - who, on her death-bed, said to an aunt of mine, a wonderfully kind person, 'You owe me two and thruppence.' A cheque-book springs to mind, but, incredible as it sounds, women were not permitted to have cheque-books at that time, or, presumably, bank accounts.Axel_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST}

I agree with Cantor on this one, if you are doing math it better be correct. But lets look at at the facts, the figure posted by Cantor is evident of its zero probability and I think that is what the Rabbi tried to convey, mathematically its not probable, or improbable but impossible.Andre_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PST}

As far as anyone knows, the capacity to make mistakes is balanced among all people.
Unless you meant that in some arcane way, as a general principle it is certainly false.
your calculation of 1.42 x 10^778 doesn’t fundamentally change the issue the author was pointing out.
It doesn't change the "issue" but it changes the force of his argument. The probability argument the author was making was foundational to the whole article. If the author does not understand simple math, and doesn't even know he doesn't understand it, it makes the author look careless and/or unqualified to use a probability argument.
That, I think, is what people consider more important.
I wasn't arguing what was "more" important. I was arguing that due diligence with simple math is important when writing an article in which probability calculations are foundational. Can you agree with that?cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

...arguing with jerks is a waste of time.
Hint: that's why few people bother arguing with you.cantor_{October 14, 2013
October
10
Oct
14
14
2013
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PST}

Upright BiPed, Well said but arguing with jerks is a waste of time.Mapou_{October 13, 2013
October
10
Oct
13
13
2013
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PST}

cantor, If you see that someone has made a factual mistake, it's certainly okay to point it out. As far as anyone knows, the capacity to make mistakes is balanced among all people. But like objections, not all mistakes are made the same. Here is something you might want to consider; your calculation of 1.42 x 10^778 doesn't fundamentally change the issue the author was pointing out. In the end, you have the mistaken calculation in one hand, and the correct calculation in the other. Both dwarf the estimated 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, which was the author's point. That, I think, is what people consider more important.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2013
October
10
Oct
13
13
2013
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PST}

correction: Dr. Giem,, sorrybornagain77_{October 13, 2013
October
10
Oct
13
13
2013
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply