Abiogenisis by the Numbers

quote:

---

quote:

---

Behe refers to such experimental "proof" of replicating RNA self-assembling as flying a thousand ground hogs to the last lane of a thousand lane highway and placing them between the 999th and 1000th lane.

---

Thanks for the silly, incorrect analogy. Perhaps you could provide some math or evidence instead of groudhog stories?

---

Behe's groundhog story (which RL has totally garbled) is delightfully torn to pieces by Pennock in Tower of Babel and reproduced at Metaphors on Trial or, How did the Groundhog Cross the Road?.

quote:

---

... Dr. Ross. He of all the scientific based creationists makes the most sense to me and stays current with advances in knowledge on many fronts.

---

Dr. Ross is an intelligent man who is extremely knowledgable about astrophysics, astronomy, and related fields.He is making a genuine effort to produce a scientific theory of the universe. He is, of course, an Old Earth creationist; no astrophysicists can believe in a young Universe - they know too much!Alas, he is not knowledgable about biology, the theory of evolution, and related fields. What he writes about such things it is, sad to say, hooey and completely untrustworthy.Young Earth Creationists loathe him.See Review of The Genesis Question, By Hugh Ross ... you might also want to read About the Author.

quote:

---

I am sorry to say that you are wrong here. Dr. Ross, as are many others, is making the point that it is highly improbable we would find ANY planet with these life friendly conditions.

---

And PS, as are many many many others, is trying to maker the point that such calculations are GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Nobody knows the probability of life arising, nobody knows the probability of an environment being suitable for life, nobody has even the vaguest of meaningful approximations to those probabilities. Dr. Ross's numbers (and all similar "analyses") are derived from obviously meaningless guesses tailored to produce the result he wants.

[quote]

quote:

---

Alas, he is not knowledgable about biology, the theory of evolution, and related fields. What he writes about such things it is, sad to say, hooey and completely untrustworthy.

---

quote:

---

What parts, which articles or books?

---

See the references in my original message, and Hugh Ross, Jinmium and Neanderthal flute.As I said, anything he writes on biology or evolution and related subjects is untrustworthy. For example, CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS, in which he makes the common (among creationists) error of assuming that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" were the only humans alive in their (widely separated) times. Of course, if we are all can indeed count those two individuals among our ancestors that does not mean that there were not other humans alive at that time, and there is plenty of evidence that other humans were alive.

quote:

---

So are you saying there may be missing DNA? I am not sure how other humans being present 200,000 years aga affects this study he is sighting in the article you reference.

---

I'm not saying anyting about DNA, missing or otherwise. It doesn't affect the study, but it affects his interpreatation of it. Many creationists explicitly say that "mitochondrial Eve" is the Eve of the Bible and the scientists have her dating wrong; Ross only implies it. Mitochondrial Eve is not the Eve of the Bible because, when she lived there were thousands of other human females living, scatered across the world.

quote:

---

none of these long gone species had any affect on modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry."

---

Almsot correct. Only one long-gone individual¹ had any affect on the y-chromosome of modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution of the y-chromosome² has occurred in male ancestry." There's a lot more to human males than y-chromosomes!¹The contemporaries of "Y-chromosome Adam" were the same species as him.²This is implied in the article, and should go without saying, but I'm just making it explicit.