From: johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:51:13 GMT

In article 2mVHuB5w165w@kalki33, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us () writes:
>johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>> You could silence most of them by posting this proof, I think.
>
>Oh, SURE!

Well, we'd read the proof and then start spewing forth
objections to it. But at least THESE threads would die.

Or I hope so.

>> You haven't proved ANYTHING about evolution. You do not even
>> address it slightly.
>
>Ok. Here you go: Dear evolution, rest in pieces!

:)

Who could ask for anything more?

>> >> Heck, we don't even KNOW you need a planet to have life- you need
>> >> one to get life like us, but what's so special about that? 
>> >
>> >I agree with this statement. It is not necessary to have a planet to
>> >have life. In fact, matter is not neccessary for life.
>> 
>> Depends what you mean by life. But you may be right; matter
>> is required for life as we know it, but what else may be possible,
>> who can tell..
>
>Yes, who can tell... Our point is that there is someone who CAN tell,
>and we follow his definition of life.

Whose that? That the Lord of the Invisible Pink Unicorns?

> The definitions of life given by
>reductionistic science are not able to account for many of the
>properties of life.

You only list one (which I dispute anyway, see below), which !=
many. What else besides conciousness?

> One glaring deficiency of reductionism is in the
>area of consciousness, which is certainly a property of "life as we know
>it" but cannot be shown to follow from any known physical laws.

Can't it? I see no reason why it ->CANNOT<-, it only after all
requires a pile of appropriately initialized neurons and suchlike
(plus a support system and all that garbage); I have yet to
see any evidence that this is not enough. I have evidence that
this at least CONTRIBUTES to the business, as physically damage
the brain impares the mind of the brain's owner. (If you dont
believe me, get yourself a frontal lobotomy. :) )

But I have a more fundamentaly objection yet: Who says "conciousness"
is a property of "life"? That seems to imply that ALL life is concious,
which does not seem to be the case, unless you limit life a lot. I prefer
to include things like viruses (virii?) and plants, which do not
exhibit conciousness as near as I can tell.

>> My name's Dan, actually, not prabhu.
>
>"prabhu" simply means "dear sir" or "master" in Sanskrit. It is a
>respectful form of address.

Oh ok. I do not speak Sanskrit, alas. (perhaps I should, it has a charming
name at the least) so speaking to me in that language will do little good.

>> >There are books about information theory, probability, statistical
>> >mechanics, molecular biology, etc. I simply can't state all the
>> >derivations of everything I refer to here. Some of it just has to be
>> >taken for granted. You have to assume that some scientist out there will
>> >scream if I do something wrong.
>> 
>> I will so assume- but I will also scream sometimes if I see something
>> amiss. I see no reason why I cant babble too. :)
>> 
>> Also to nag you to get that proof posted. THAT will shut the lot
>> of us up. All 412,123,322 threads. :)
>
>No problem! I am a little upset that I have to wait for permission to
>post the stuff too. But we should follow the copyright laws.

I am not asking you to post a verbatim copy, but rather a summary.

If you turn out to be unable to get the idea across to us (I remember
you saying you didn't feel qualified to present his), then you can post
the verbatim copy. In the mean time it will give us something to chew
on. Better then trying to dispove your book by means of its table of
contence! :)

>Sincerely,
>Kalki "What, me worry?" Dasa

Oh, my congradulations on the amazing volume of posting you've put
out. I rather suspect your tapeworm has been helping you out with
that.

(say Hi to him for me, btw.)

Oh, now I gotta question for you. Is your tapeworm schizophrenic?
I mean, does it have a multiple-personality disorder. Ive heard
it said here that you aren't one Kalki but rather an entire platoon
of Kalkii. I'd like to reconcile this with the previous "tapeworm
theory", if I can. :)

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.