From: johnsd2@jec321.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec321.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:24:59 GMT

In article JNi2TB2w165w@kalki33, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us () writes:
[deletia- book info]
>>
>> Why don't you just summarize this devastatingly straightforward proof,
>> Kalki?
>
>The publisher may be obscure in certain circles, but actually they are
>the largest publisher of books about Vedic philosophy in the world. This
>is a fact. They maintain at least 200 titles and have printed a couple
>hundred million books.

But we are talking about science, not Vedic philosophy...

>You can obtain the book directly from the Bhaktivedanta Institute in San
>Diego by calling 619-272-8145.
>
>I have asked Dr. Thompson's permission to serialize the book over this
>newsgroup, and am awaiting his reply. Please understand that I am in no
>way trying to "back out". It's just that I am less qualified than he to
>discuss these matters, and therefore it would be better if the book were
>read (or posted here) first, than for me to try to explain it step by
>step or to give disconnected quotes.

Why not try? Give us a summary. If you don't understand it, why do
you cite it? If you DO understand it, surely you can at least try
to explain it to us? If we don't get it, we can ask questions.

> I am not a professional scientist.

I somehow expected that. :)

>I have some training in mathematics and some knowledge of God, that's
>all.

>The book demonstrates that by adopting the hypotheses of the theory
>of molecular evolution, it must follow from these hypotheses that there
>is an extremely tiny --virtually infinitesimal-- probability that a
>living cell could have arisen by random molecular combination under
>natural selection, even given a period of time much longer than the
>estimated age of the earth.

Aha! If this is what it proves, it STILL doesn't show we could not
have evolved. I mean, if even your proof is correct, it doesn't
demonstrate that we could not have evolved. This is because there
are no doubt countless worlds suitable for life, and certainly
vast streches of time during which life could form.

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? 

>The methods used by Dr. Thompson are based on standard
>information-theoretic models for determining the information content of
>physical systems.

Which I, alas, am not familiar with. :( Perhaps you could explain?

> The information content of a typical cell is specified
>(within bounds) as is the information content of the physical laws which
>supposedly govern all possible material interactions.

Why?

> Since the information
>content of the known laws of physics, and of simple organic molecules,
>is relatively small, whereas the information content of living cells is
>quite large,

Why do you say that living cells have a high information content,
compared to their component molecules?

> there is the question of how a system of low information
>content can "evolve" into one of high information content without there
>being a pre-existing source of high information content to draw from.

Why is that?

>The balance of the chapter is an investigation of the reasons given by
>the discipline of molecular evolution that purport to account for this
>strange trend.

Do you mean he has ANNOTHER complaint with evolution- this one with
the mechanism itself?

>I hope this gives you something to digest.

Mmmm-mmmm good! :)

>If I do get permission to post it, I am wondering how to type the
>mathematical symbols on this ascii terminal! I guess I will just use
>"computerese".

Good luck with that! Also, you seem to be refering to yourself as 'I'.
Gotta watch that.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa
>
>
>       -------------------------------------------------------
>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
>      |                                                       |
>      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
>      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
>       -------------------------------------------------------

I'm dying of curiousity. Does this chant mean anything?

---
			- 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.