From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_
Followup-To: talk.origins
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:17:03 GMT


[followups to talk.origins]

In article <13328@pogo.wv.tek.com>, daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com writes:
|Herb Sutter:
||Let me quote one paragraph from the book you're dissecting (_Life_, pg. 44):
||    "The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules.  What
||    is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random
||    in an organic soup?  Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one
||    in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). 

The remainder of that paragraph:
	But any event that has just one chance in just 10^50 is
	dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.  An idea
	of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact
	that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total
	number of all the atoms in the universe!

|Excuse me Herb, but what "evolutionists" made that claim, when did they make
|it, what was the context, and what was the basis for that conclusion? Left as
|is, this claim is pretty well meaningless and useless.  Were the people who
|made this statement actual "evolutionists", or were they simply kooks, whom the
|authors of _Life_ conveniently labeled "evolutionists".  
 [some pointed questions elided]

Dave's last question, moved up to group it with his previous paragraph:
|By the way, if the book _Life_ does not specify who those "evolutionist" were,
|or specifies kooks for their "evolutionists", or doesn't specify the context
|(or specifies incorrect context) for this 1 in 10^113 odds, then I would
|indeed conclude that the authors of _Life_ were dishonest. 

That paragraph (chapter 4, paragraph 18) contains no footnotes
or references for the claims it makes.  It specifies no time period,
no amount of soup, no conditions whatsoever.  It gives no names of
specific "evolutionists" who acknowledge those odds, and no
references to mathematicians who dismiss unlikely events as
"never happening."

Two of Sutter's comments on education:
||The "guarantee" fallacy keeps getting me.  CJ, have you taken courses in
||probability theory and stats?  I had to for my math degree (along with
||some astronomy and nuclear science).  [...]

||I believe that persons who believe in evolution are mathematically
||ignorant.  That's not an insult; ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge
||and can be fixed by learning (stupidity is far worse and can't).  

Dave Butler's response:
|I am sorry, but as you categorically made that statement to include even
|mathematically educated individuals such as myself, I can only take it to be
|a thoughtless insult.  You implicitly state that any trained mathematician
|who disagrees with you is incompetent.  I find such an attitude to be 
|selfrighteous and stupid (especially considering your misuse of statistics).

My degree is also in mathematics.  I found Sutter's posturing
to be utterly laughable.  Does he expect to awe his readers with
his stunning education?  That might work in his JW congregation,
where most people aren't likely to have math degrees, and would
be easily cowed.  It probably won't work here, where his audience
is likely to be expert.

Tell you what, Mr Sutter.  Why don't you put your statistics
background to work analyzing this paragraph from the _Life_
book?  p. 43, chapter 4, paragraph 17:

	What chance is there that the correct amino acids would
	come together to form a protein molecule?  It could be
	likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing
	equal numbers of red beans and white beans.  There are
	also over 100 different varieties of beans.  Now, if you
	plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you
	would get?  To get the beans that represent the basic
	components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only
	red ones-- no white ones at all!  Also, your scoop must
	contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one
	must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. 
	In the world of proteins, a single mistake in any one of
	these requirements would cause the protein that is
	produced to fail to function properly.  Would any amount
	of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile
	have given the right combination?  No.  Then how would it
	have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

Comments about how well the analogy fits are also welcome.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the 
same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many 
idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will 
lead." --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism