The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/famed-yale-computer-science-professor-quits-believing-darwins-theories/

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/famed-yale-computer-science-professor-quits-believing-darwins-theories/

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

Perhaps a next generation times a few supercomputer could use amino acids to create new proteins from scratch

Cymek said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

Perhaps a next generation times a few supercomputer could use amino acids to create new proteins from scratch

Plus I suppose the Earth is just that when it comes to life, highly complex even at the beginning, with numerous experiments for life creation going on everywhere and everywhen with billions of years to work with

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/famed-yale-computer-science-professor-quits-believing-darwins-theories/

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

This article doesn’t actually include an explanation of Gelernter’s proof, though he claims that evolution has effectively been disproven.

If you’re aware of a dissertation where he does provide this proof, please provide it. He’s not a biologist, but that doesn’t immediately discredit him: computer scientists can provide meaningful input on molecular evolution. But this is an extremely strong claim he is making and he needs to provide strong evidence and rock-solid reasoning if he’s to be taken seriously.

One giant red flag is his overemphasis of the importamce of Darwin, as though the reason that evolution is now widely accepted today is because of the writings of one 19th century natural philosopher. People with useful things to say about evolution usually refer to more recent evidence and authors.

Cymek said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

Perhaps a next generation times a few supercomputer could use amino acids to create new proteins from scratch

It has recently been done in 2017

A rising peptide: Supercomputing helps scientists come closer to tailoring drug molecules

A team of researchers led by biophysicists at the University of Washington have come one step closer to designing tailor-made drug molecules that are more precise and carry fewer side effects than most existing therapeutic compounds.

With the help of the Mira supercomputer, located at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, the scientists have successfully designed and verified stable versions of synthetic peptides, components that join together to form proteins. They published their work in a recent issue of Nature.

Cymek said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

Perhaps a next generation times a few supercomputer could use amino acids to create new proteins from scratch

It has recently been done in 2017

A rising peptide: Supercomputing helps scientists come closer to tailoring drug molecules

A team of researchers led by biophysicists at the University of Washington have come one step closer to designing tailor-made drug molecules that are more precise and carry fewer side effects than most existing therapeutic compounds.

With the help of the Mira supercomputer, located at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, the scientists have successfully designed and verified stable versions of synthetic peptides, components that join together to form proteins. They published their work in a recent issue of Nature.

His claim, in the article:

What’s more, Gelernter adds Darwin’s main problem is molecular biology, pointing out advances in technology have brought forth vast amounts of new information and understanding about the complexity of life, all of which has shown random mutation plus natural selection cannot generate new and complex creatures.

By the numbers, it’s impossible, the computer scientist points out.

He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”

Now I realise that there is no numbers given, but surely someone has done the calculations so that this form of argument can be refuted.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/famed-yale-computer-science-professor-quits-believing-darwins-theories/

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

Nylonase is a protein that dissolves nylon (actually by-products from nylon manufacture) so it can be digested by bacteria. It’s produced by a bacterium that has only existed since nylon was invented in the 1930s and was discovered in about 1975. See the wiki article on nylon-eating bacteria.

btm said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

Nylonase is a protein that dissolves nylon (actually by-products from nylon manufacture) so it can be digested by bacteria. It’s produced by a bacterium that has only existed since nylon was invented in the 1930s and was discovered in about 1975. See the wiki article on nylon-eating bacteria.

Now that’s the goods. Refutation by example beats maths any day :)

Millions of possibilities for molecules can be devised from combinatorial chemistry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_chemistry

Combinatorial chemistry comprises chemical synthetic methods that make it possible to prepare a large number (tens to thousands or even millions) of compounds in a single process. These compound libraries can be made as mixtures, sets of individual compounds or chemical structures generated by computer software. Combinatorial chemistry can be used for the synthesis of small molecules and for peptides.

Strategies that allow identification of useful components of the libraries are also part of combinatorial chemistry. The methods used in combinatorial chemistry are applied outside chemistry, too.

I think he should go back to the drawing board and start again.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Millions of possibilities for molecules can be devised from combinatorial chemistry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_chemistry

Combinatorial chemistry comprises chemical synthetic methods that make it possible to prepare a large number (tens to thousands or even millions) of compounds in a single process. These compound libraries can be made as mixtures, sets of individual compounds or chemical structures generated by computer software. Combinatorial chemistry can be used for the synthesis of small molecules and for peptides.

Strategies that allow identification of useful components of the libraries are also part of combinatorial chemistry. The methods used in combinatorial chemistry are applied outside chemistry, too.

It’s exciting I think
All those possibilities and can we solve most material design problems with time.

dv said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

This article doesn’t actually include an explanation of Gelernter’s proof, though he claims that evolution has effectively been disproven.

If you’re aware of a dissertation where he does provide this proof, please provide it. He’s not a biologist, but that doesn’t immediately discredit him: computer scientists can provide meaningful input on molecular evolution. But this is an extremely strong claim he is making and he needs to provide strong evidence and rock-solid reasoning if he’s to be taken seriously.

One giant red flag is his overemphasis of the importamce of Darwin, as though the reason that evolution is now widely accepted today is because of the writings of one 19th century natural philosopher. People with useful things to say about evolution usually refer to more recent evidence and authors.

Agreed, the absence of any details of what his argument is was disappointing.

My guess is it comes down to:

Evolution does not explain the emergence of the first life, therefore all of the theory of evolution, is wrong.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think he should go back to the drawing board and start again.

Even simple things, like teeth regrowing after one is pulled out, it’s probably antidentite to wish for it but hey

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

This article doesn’t actually include an explanation of Gelernter’s proof, though he claims that evolution has effectively been disproven.

If you’re aware of a dissertation where he does provide this proof, please provide it. He’s not a biologist, but that doesn’t immediately discredit him: computer scientists can provide meaningful input on molecular evolution. But this is an extremely strong claim he is making and he needs to provide strong evidence and rock-solid reasoning if he’s to be taken seriously.

One giant red flag is his overemphasis of the importamce of Darwin, as though the reason that evolution is now widely accepted today is because of the writings of one 19th century natural philosopher. People with useful things to say about evolution usually refer to more recent evidence and authors.

Agreed, the absence of any details of what his argument is was disappointing.

My guess is it comes down to:

Evolution does not explain the emergence of the first life, therefore all of the theory of evolution, is wrong.

Probably never be answered but then were did god come from is equally unanswerable.

sibeen said:

btm said:

sibeen said:

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

Nylonase is a protein that dissolves nylon (actually by-products from nylon manufacture) so it can be digested by bacteria. It’s produced by a bacterium that has only existed since nylon was invented in the 1930s and was discovered in about 1975. See the wiki article on nylon-eating bacteria.

Now that’s the goods. Refutation by example beats maths any day :)

OK, but we don’t actually know that this bacterium didn’t exist before nylon.

sibeen said:

His claim, in the article:

What’s more, Gelernter adds Darwin’s main problem is molecular biology, pointing out advances in technology have brought forth vast amounts of new information and understanding about the complexity of life, all of which has shown random mutation plus natural selection cannot generate new and complex creatures.

By the numbers, it’s impossible, the computer scientist points out.

He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”

Now I realise that there is no numbers given, but surely someone has done the calculations so that this form of argument can be refuted.

Well, yes. That abiogenesis is impossible is not a widely held view among biologists. There are around a hundred million million million million planets: it is a huge event space.

He is the one making the strong claim: it is up to him to do the work and provide the evidence and proof. Until he does that, this is just chit chat. No one needs to go out of their way to refute him. Q

Second red flag is that he is talking about the odds of a protein forming by random chance. A protein molecule has hundreds of thousands of atoms. Although there exist various models for abiogenesis, none of them involve the sudden appearance of an entire protein. The development of complete proteins is a feature of advanced complete life.

The fact that he said this suggests to me he’s trying to trick the audience, so I’m ready to write him off until I see a detailed dissertation. He’s just another common or garden creationist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

btm said:

Nylonase is a protein that dissolves nylon (actually by-products from nylon manufacture) so it can be digested by bacteria. It’s produced by a bacterium that has only existed since nylon was invented in the 1930s and was discovered in about 1975. See the wiki article on nylon-eating bacteria.

Now that’s the goods. Refutation by example beats maths any day :)

OK, but we don’t actually know that this bacterium didn’t exist before nylon.

It would have been quite hungry.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Millions of possibilities for molecules can be devised from combinatorial chemistry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_chemistry

Combinatorial chemistry comprises chemical synthetic methods that make it possible to prepare a large number (tens to thousands or even millions) of compounds in a single process. These compound libraries can be made as mixtures, sets of individual compounds or chemical structures generated by computer software. Combinatorial chemistry can be used for the synthesis of small molecules and for peptides.

Strategies that allow identification of useful components of the libraries are also part of combinatorial chemistry. The methods used in combinatorial chemistry are applied outside chemistry, too.

It’s exciting I think
All those possibilities and can we solve most material design problems with time.

His point though is that evolution is supposed to work without the benefit of strategies that allow identification of useful components.

OTOH his argument appears to rest on the assumption that incremental small variations cannot result in large variations over relatively short time-spans (tens of millions of years). That assumption would need some pretty good evidence to support it before being reason to reject the theory of evolution.

Also … he is saying Darwin Darwin Darwin while discussing abiogenesis (he doesn’t use the word abiogenesis but it’s clear from context of proteins being created from scratch that is what he’s talking about).

Darwin didn’t concern himself much with the initial creation of life from nonlife. On The Origins Of Species doesn’t even mention it.

dv said:

Also … he is saying Darwin Darwin Darwin while discussing abiogenesis (he doesn’t use the word abiogenesis but it’s clear from context of proteins being created from scratch that is what he’s talking about).

Darwin didn’t concern himself much with the initial creation of life from nonlife. On The Origins Of Species doesn’t even mention it.

I’m well aware of that. It was his argument about a new protein coming into existence that I needed rebutted :)

dv said:

Also … he is saying Darwin Darwin Darwin while discussing abiogenesis (he doesn’t use the word abiogenesis but it’s clear from context of proteins being created from scratch that is what he’s talking about).

Darwin didn’t concern himself much with the initial creation of life from nonlife. On The Origins Of Species doesn’t even mention it.

Darwin was working higher up on the chart while abiogenesis starts at the beginning of the chart.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

This article doesn’t actually include an explanation of Gelernter’s proof, though he claims that evolution has effectively been disproven.

If you’re aware of a dissertation where he does provide this proof, please provide it. He’s not a biologist, but that doesn’t immediately discredit him: computer scientists can provide meaningful input on molecular evolution. But this is an extremely strong claim he is making and he needs to provide strong evidence and rock-solid reasoning if he’s to be taken seriously.

One giant red flag is his overemphasis of the importamce of Darwin, as though the reason that evolution is now widely accepted today is because of the writings of one 19th century natural philosopher. People with useful things to say about evolution usually refer to more recent evidence and authors.

Agreed, the absence of any details of what his argument is was disappointing.

My guess is it comes down to:

Evolution does not explain the emergence of the first life, therefore all of the theory of evolution, is wrong.

Probably never be answered but then were did god come from is equally unanswerable.

I’d say the origin of “god” (where “god” is any intelligent entity capable of designing and creating a universe such as the one we can observe a bit of) is way more unanswerable than the origin of life, given a universe such as the one we can observe a bit of.

Even if it is true that the first life is hugely improbable (which I doubt), given a universe where we do not know the upper limit in size, and just one known example of life, we have no way of calculating the probability of life arising somewhere in that universe.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

btm said:

Nylonase is a protein that dissolves nylon (actually by-products from nylon manufacture) so it can be digested by bacteria. It’s produced by a bacterium that has only existed since nylon was invented in the 1930s and was discovered in about 1975. See the wiki article on nylon-eating bacteria.

Now that’s the goods. Refutation by example beats maths any day :)

OK, but we don’t actually know that this bacterium didn’t exist before nylon.

If you have bacteria that eat polymers and plastic then why not nylon which is derived from polymers?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

Now that’s the goods. Refutation by example beats maths any day :)

OK, but we don’t actually know that this bacterium didn’t exist before nylon.

If you have bacteria that eat polymers and plastic then why not nylon which is derived from polymers?

Protein is a polymer and I eat that … don’t see me braggin’

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but we don’t actually know that this bacterium didn’t exist before nylon.

If you have bacteria that eat polymers and plastic then why not nylon which is derived from polymers?

Protein is a polymer and I eat that … don’t see me braggin’

He probably wanted 15 minutes of fame.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/famed-yale-computer-science-professor-quits-believing-darwins-theories/

The discussion in the comments is pretty depressing.

His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation. I’ll admit that I have to take evolution as an article of faith as my biology knowledge is basically zero. I’d never, for instance, tell an IDer that they are wrong as if it got to an argument stage I’d be standing upon air.

> His argument about a new protein coming into existence and the probability of it happening being so low as to be next to impossible in our universe, does anyone have a refutation.

I’ve said that myself, de novo protein. The only way that we could have useful proteins now is if useful proteins evolved from other macromolecules. Which proves that Darwin was right and that ID is wrong.

Biochemists have never ever looked for proteins in Miller-Urey type experiments. They could. And should have in the past 60 years looked for new proteins coming into existance de novo. To see how easily it can happen or how difficult.

My personal view is that life as we know it could have existed before proteins. The “metabolism first” origin of life.

we love a good Argument Against Authority play

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

we love a good Argument Against Authority play

I just learned that Charles Darwin was an extreme sexist, at least by current standards.

How come no -one mentioned this to me before?

I do note that you didn’t ask before.

And, I didn’t know before.

Can you provide some evidence?

TATE on Darwin and Women

Kwikc¡ Beter Cancel The Discoveri Slash Invension Slash Qaraqterisation Of Evolusion Then ¡

The Rev Dodgson said:

kii said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I just learned that Charles Darwin was an extreme sexist, at least by current standards.

How come no -one mentioned this to me before?

A lot of men in history were shitty people.

It was a question on Quora that prompted my learning on this. You might like the response (from Claire Jordan):

Evolutionist women, Darwin claimed that men are better than woman. Will you continue to believe a blatant sexist, or will you renounce evolution?

For fuck’s sake, not this drivel again. Darwin is not important, except historically. Evolution no more depends on Darwin than heart surgery depends on Harvey, who first described the circulation of the blood – he was just a guy who wrote a good book about evolution. Evolution is a real phenomenon whose existence does not depend on who does or doesn’t write a book about it.

Wrighte, But If You Follow The Way “SCIENCE” Are Taught In High School, You Know That To Pass Their Assessments An Extensive Nolej Of “Scientists” Is More Important Than An Understanding Of The SCIENCE

dv said:

kii said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I just learned that Charles Darwin was an extreme sexist, at least by current standards.

How come no -one mentioned this to me before?

A lot of men in history were shitty people.

If he’d just drop all that evolution nonsense he could be speaker of the US House of Representatives

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/28/staff-call-for-hospital-renaming-over-lady-cilentos-racist-and-homophobic-views

Cancel Cancer ¡