Slashdot Mirror

Ralph Sansbury has a very simple explanation for all of this which I'm sure will get shouted down (since that seems to be what people do here for all new ideas) Sansbury suggests through a number of different lines of argumentation that the "speed of light" is really an almost-instantaneous EM signal which, by contrast, slowly propagates through the atomic nucleus into the valence shells, before it registers as a change on an electronic component. If Sansbury was right on this, then the difference between a conventional computer and the quantum computer described below would seem to be that the quantum version would run on the electron subparticles (the "subtrons") -- which it would appear from this press release can be forcibly leaked off of the electron itself by simply trapping it -- the advantage being, apparently, that -- in Sansbury's view, at least -- there is no slow propagation of the EM signal through the valence shells with the subtrons. It just becomes a virtually instantaneous transmission of subtrons. So, is it time to ask if the electron is actually a fundamental particle? It would seem that much weird physics can be reduced to classical explanations with this single idea. He also claims to have demonstrated his idea with a fairly simple experiment See http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Wallsan.txt I know y'all be hatin, but it is indeed a simple explanation.

I've seen one argument (found it by Googling) that said, in essence, that the existence of dinosaurs the size of 747s is demonstrable proof that gravity was weaker 65+ million years ago (as predicted by the EU theory). Which is all well and good, until you realize that the largest flying "dinosaur" (actually a pterosaur, not a dinosaur at all, but most people make that mistake) was nowhere near that big. Pterosaurs had a maximum wingspan of about 12 meters, compared to the 747's 60 meter width. So, right there, you can scratch paleontology off the list of fields that EU is consistent with.

Multi-disciplinary implies that the theory retains some connection with the facts in at least some of the disciplines it spans. Virtually everything I've read on this electric universe nonsense practically screams "crackpot", and I can only guess that the stuff that isn't obviously bullshit would also reek of crackpottery to me if I was proficient in the required fields.

Perhaps it would be more truthful to say that "wild, inaccurate claims" about an electric universe span multiple disciplines, instead of using the word "evidence".

If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.

People should be asking how it is possible that dinosaur birds of the past could have been as large as 747's. We don't have birds today on the entire planet that are larger than about 50 lbs. And this clearly pushes the limits of what's possible with bird mass because these 50-lb birds practically kill themselves when they land. The Mongolians have tried to breed bigger falcons for thousands of years with no luck. So, how is it possible that birds were once as big as 747's?

People should be asking exactly *which* animals survived, and why?

People should be asking if the land-walking dinosaurs were alive today, would they survive? Check out http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropod s/biganims.html.

Ask those questions *WITH* the questions about the impact, and suddenly the bigger picture changes. Is the Big Bang Theory still just a theory, or are there alternative cosmologies that people will consider? What about the electrical force? In a theory of everything based upon electricity, gravity would be a function of electrical charge accumulation and the Theory of Relativity could be very easily explained using aether concepts that contrary to popular belief, have never actually been disproven. The aether explanation for Relativity is actually much simpler to understand than Relativity.

Do planets accumulate and transfer charge? According to astrophysicists and NASA, the answer is a vehement "NO!". But have you ever actually looked at the Aristarchus crater on the Moon? That "debris field" has *negative depth*. They are trenches! That looks a hell of a lot more like a lightning strike to me than a debris field: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309hubble.jpg. Should we just assume that it is pure coincidence that the Aristarchus and Tycho craters occur on naturally high spots on the Moon's surface?

We know that metals can accumulate charge and we know that the Earth has a hell of a lot of metals. So, why can't the Earth accumulate and transfer charge with nearby planets or bodies? Because we've never seen it happen? But we can see large-scale electrical activity all over the universe with our telescopes. We've gathered enough data by now on comets to suspect that the tail and coma of a comet are in fact lightning bolts. Check it out: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . If we're seeing large magnetic fields and temperatures of 100 million Kelvin inside of nebulae, then that means that nebulae are almost certainly *not* forming by gravitational collapse and that electricity is the dominant force in creating stars. If we're seeing large-scale electrical forces elsewhere in the universe, why should our solar system be so special as to not have these?

Why are all craters round? Sure, astrophysicists will tell you that it's because an object going fast enough will create an explosion upon impact, but then why is the sedimentary layer at the bottom of Meteor Crater undisturbed? Would a comparable nuclear explosion leave no trace of itself in the ground beneath it?

How To Kill A Planet of Dinosaurs:

What motivated Einstein to say that space is modified by gravity? Imagine that a planet is orbiting around the sun. Then imagine that suddenly the Sun disappears, and the source of gravitational attraction is gone. What happens to the planet? Does it instantly go off the orbit? Or does the disappearance of gravity require some time to reach the orbiting planet's position? Einstein's answer is that it stays in the orbit for a time R/c before going off. It is as though gravitation continues to operate on the planet at its location even though the Sun is gone. Something wa

And of course, when creationist do give a scientific source for their claim the gurus at talk.origins usually only take a matter of minutes to point out that its a misquote or a misrepresented context.

Said gurus couldn't even tell the difference between Darwin and Hitler when pressed to do so by one of their opponents, why trust them for more subtle reasoning? (-:

But perhaps more important, throw Apollos, the baloney detector at any one of their pages and see what happens. Apollos is a good deal more specific and exemplified than Carl's more, er, primordial detector. G'wan, print it out and go do a few pages, you know you want to!

Saying that the existence of Reality confirms the existence of God is a specious argument that bites it's own tail.

I haven't seen anything on Yellowstones forests - but I can well imagine a mechanism that would explain it (like repeated volcanic eruptions that flattened and covered the forests).

one reason is that while he is (supposedly) omniescent, Nature has rules and limitations. The reality I observe follows those rules, not Gods Ten Commandments.

show me a burning bush and I'll look for evidence of matches and starter fluid

Saying that the existence of Reality confirms the existence of God is a specious argument that bites it's own tail.

I haven't seen anything on Yellowstones forests - but I can well imagine a mechanism that would explain it (like repeated volcanic eruptions that flattened and covered the forests).

one reason is that while he is (supposedly) omniescent, Nature has rules and limitations. The reality I observe follows those rules, not Gods Ten Commandments.

show me a burning bush and I'll look for evidence of matches and starter fluid

Saying that the existence of Reality confirms the existence of God is a specious argument that bites it's own tail.

I haven't seen anything on Yellowstones forests - but I can well imagine a mechanism that would explain it (like repeated volcanic eruptions that flattened and covered the forests).

one reason is that while he is (supposedly) omniescent, Nature has rules and limitations. The reality I observe follows those rules, not Gods Ten Commandments.

show me a burning bush and I'll look for evidence of matches and starter fluid

Sorry, these so called sources are so discredited, it isn't even funny. Just a bunch of raving loony creationists. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org [talkorigins.org] - there is plenty of info refuting these crackpots.

Sorry, these so called sources are so discredited, it isn't even funny. Just a bunch of raving loony creationists. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org [talkorigins.org] - there is plenty of info refuting these crackpots.

Biologists extracting blood cells from T-Rex bones can get a fairly good idea of an upper limit for the bone's age, based on home much the organic material has decayed.

The only dating method using how "much the organic material has decayed" that I know of would be radiocarbon 14 dating.

I'm not talking about C14, I'm talking about meat, bone and blood cells.

there's a good FAQ on this here A bit heavy on anti-creationist polemic, but it still contains a readable introduction to modern abiogenesis theory.

Try this essay for balance. If you enjoy sarcasm, this one is amusing as well.

I can't resist my own separate dig at this page, it's just asking for it:

Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10[E]40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. [...] So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

As a GSV I get to choose my own name

there's a good FAQ on this here A bit heavy on anti-creationist polemic, but it still contains a readable introduction to modern abiogenesis theory.

Try this essay for balance. If you enjoy sarcasm, this one is amusing as well.

I can't resist my own separate dig at this page, it's just asking for it:

Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10[E]40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. [...] So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

As a GSV I get to choose my own name

there's a good FAQ on this here A bit heavy on anti-creationist polemic, but it still contains a readable introduction to modern abiogenesis theory.

Try this essay for balance. If you enjoy sarcasm, this one is amusing as well.

I can't resist my own separate dig at this page, it's just asking for it:

Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10[E]40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. [...] So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

As a GSV I get to choose my own name

a very, very small fraction of a percent uphill, and the rest downhill.

If you're geek enough to read Slashdot, hopefully you're geek enough to hack together a genetic algorithm (or download one off the 'net) and see by experiment that your logic isn't sound.

No one claims that every adaptation is going to be successful over the long run.

Basically you're asking us to prefer the conclusions of your thought experiments rather the conclusions based on the evidence.

I did not mean to suggestion we refrain from thinking about the topics altogether. Instead I suggested, and attempted to illustrate with my comparison to man's attempts at flight, that we fix fundamental flaws in our math before we start applying our formulae. Just like flight was not a frivolous or fruitless pursuit, astrophysics and (maybe) abiogenesis are not, either. I hesitate to call abiogenesis anything but bunk because of the math involved. We need to stop thinking about applying our useless formulae, start thinking about the problems therein, fix them, and then apply them. To address your other concern, namely that I did not provide any new models, I did so intentionally because I realized the mere act of arguing against the methods used in the study was a long task. I will give you a general idea about the other models I to which I alluded. Current science is based upon uniformitarianism, the belief that processes observed today are processes very similar to those in either different parts of the Universe, different times in the Universe, or maybe even both. In other words, Sol is burning much like it was a billion years ago. Unfortunately, there are manifold problems with the uniformitarian model(s), so many that periods of time that fit the model are more anomalous than the anomalies. The other school, which stands in stark contrast to uniformitarianism, is catastrophism. Immanuel Velikovsky was a pioneering astronomer in this field. Most catastophists are spending their time trying to figure out facts and derive models that incorporate those facts. While this was once what astrophysicists and biologists at large attempted, it appears now we have quite a well established doctrine and look for facts to further that doctrine. I have yet to see a school of catastophists attempt to tackle the Universe with a model (it's just too hard to observe), there are several great theories about our Solar System in particular. Try here and here if you are interested. I would give a rundown myself, but I know moderators don't take kindly to rogue astronomy and biology. Kidding. If you need further information, just post again and I'll answer concerns you might raise. As for your last question, btw, I have no innate dislike of abiogenesis of which I know. If life came from nonlife, then it came from nonlife and there isn't room for like or dislike. The math seems irrevocably against the concept, though. I felt its discussion pertinent to /. posters who felt that a little water and some heat was all that is necessary for self-replicating objects. Life is anything but common.

Astrophysics and abiogenetical biology are the two most FUBAR branches in all of Science. Both branches religiously attempt to rectify random creation with probability. When the attempt fails, they brush aside the entire problem, as they believe their models are the only possible explanation short of God. The fact of the matter is that we know nothing about how our universe came into existence, or how life began in the Universe, save that all our current models could not be true. Unfortunately, instead of trying to find new models, we have defended them with a fervor rivaling the most devout zealots of any religion (with less excuse for doing so than any religious person.)

What many people forget is that one solid piece of negative evidence absolutely refutes a theory, regardless of how much favorable evidence that theory has behind it. For example, the equation:

(bn - 1)/(b - 1) = b(n-1) + ... + b2 + b + 1

works for all b and n. Well, all b and n except b = 1, and all n > 0. That's an incredible success rate for the equation. There are literally infinte conditions it satisfies. Yet, Mathematicians would rightfully scorn anyone who suggested that the formula was viable and that just because it didn't work in a few anonomalous circumstances doesn't mean that it shouldn't be adopted as a general rule. To suggest such a thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Scientific Method.

Yet the great majority of astrophysicists and geneticists/evolutionists (whom I collectively called abiogenetical biologists, those who concern themselves with the origins of life from nonlife) carry this misunderstanding. I will list some general problems with which the two branches have yet to contend (and will never be able to do so as long as they adhere to their current models) and then--for the dimmer of you--explain why basic flaws in our models mean that the conjecture about a "habitable zone" is a waste of our time, bandwidth, and brainpower.

From the Realm of Astrophysics

I have seen many posts attempting to describe planetary surface temperature as a function of atmospheric gases and distance from the sun. This has been tried with Venus (viz. Sagan et al.) and has failed miserably. Sagan attempted to explain Venus' 800 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature by attributing it to a "Super Greenhouse" effect. Gunnar Heinsohn had a nice response to that absurdity:

If the Venus gases enable a runaway greenhouse effect of 800 degrees F wouldn't that allow us to solve all our energy problems, i.e., wouldn't that give us a perpetuum mobile? Shouldn't we put a Venus gas mix in a glass box, expose it to the sun and, then, reach a temperature sufficient to heat steam up to the level of driving turbines? Wouldn't we even have an advantage over Venus which, after all, cannot put a glass lid on its atmosphere?

On an even more roguish note, we don't even understand gravity (for those of you who don't understand nerd-authored physics, see this simplification), much less are we prepared to use our understanding to calculate life-favoring gravitational conditions as a functions of planetary size and density. If someone attempts to dispute this, I will be happy to illustrate further with tangible examples.

From the Realm of Abiogenesis

Planetary conditions can never be suitable for the spotaneous generation of life. At least, not so long as our Universe is only 20 billion years old. I cut and paste from this site, which is a discussion of abiogenesis by Alexander Mebane:

Dismissing as unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever have spontaneously "evolved", because of the complexity of those purine base + sugar + phosphoric acid structures,t he asks what could have been the simplest possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that might have been able to generate the essential quality of life, self-replication. Generously oversimplifying to the maximum degree credible (or beyond), he proposes (p. 296) that the first "proto-life" might conceivably have emerged from a set of as few as ten very small "primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of only 25 links, and all constructed from a set of only four amino acids, rather than the twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the real natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively of those four amino acids (which is of course, a simply ridiculous postulate), he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable conditions, the probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally, forming the requisite set of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So, if something like 10^150 random trials were available, the thing might really have happened. But he had previously calculated (p. 126) that, if one assumes that the Earth was covered by a 10-km-deep layer of "soup", and that random trials went on at the rate of one billion per second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a cubic millimeter) of that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that really elapsed before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could be made. (I have checked this calculation, and found it correct.) This number is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural formation of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most favorable assumptions conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take seriously the proposition that "Life on Earth must have arisen spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way...

Conclusion

Now, for those of you who don't understand why all of these problems with the methods of the scientists who dedicated themselves to this frivolous study render the study a complete waste of human resources, I will explain. This kind of conjecture is much like man's early attempts to fly by pasting feathers onto one's arms and jumping off a cliff. This was a waste of time, perfectly good paste and feathers, and a waste of a (debatably) valuable human life. No scientific progress was gained by performing this feat. It was based upon erroneous presuppositions. The only good it did was to serve as an example of what not to do.

Leave conjecture to SciFi writers. They're better at it (and they don't spend nearly so much time or energy doing so.)

Astrophysics and abiogenetical biology are the two most FUBAR branches in all of Science. Both branches religiously attempt to rectify random creation with probability. When the attempt fails, they brush aside the entire problem, as they believe their models are the only possible explanation short of God. The fact of the matter is that we know nothing about how our universe came into existence, or how life began in the Universe, save that all our current models could not be true. Unfortunately, instead of trying to find new models, we have defended them with a fervor rivaling the most devout zealots of any religion (with less excuse for doing so than any religious person.)

What many people forget is that one solid piece of negative evidence absolutely refutes a theory, regardless of how much favorable evidence that theory has behind it. For example, the equation:

(bn - 1)/(b - 1) = b(n-1) + ... + b2 + b + 1

works for all b and n. Well, all b and n except b = 1, and all n > 0. That's an incredible success rate for the equation. There are literally infinte conditions it satisfies. Yet, Mathematicians would rightfully scorn anyone who suggested that the formula was viable and that just because it didn't work in a few anonomalous circumstances doesn't mean that it shouldn't be adopted as a general rule. To suggest such a thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Scientific Method.

Yet the great majority of astrophysicists and geneticists/evolutionists (whom I collectively called abiogenetical biologists, those who concern themselves with the origins of life from nonlife) carry this misunderstanding. I will list some general problems with which the two branches have yet to contend (and will never be able to do so as long as they adhere to their current models) and then--for the dimmer of you--explain why basic flaws in our models mean that the conjecture about a "habitable zone" is a waste of our time, bandwidth, and brainpower.

From the Realm of Astrophysics

I have seen many posts attempting to describe planetary surface temperature as a function of atmospheric gases and distance from the sun. This has been tried with Venus (viz. Sagan et al.) and has failed miserably. Sagan attempted to explain Venus' 800 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature by attributing it to a "Super Greenhouse" effect. Gunnar Heinsohn had a nice response to that absurdity:

If the Venus gases enable a runaway greenhouse effect of 800 degrees F wouldn't that allow us to solve all our energy problems, i.e., wouldn't that give us a perpetuum mobile? Shouldn't we put a Venus gas mix in a glass box, expose it to the sun and, then, reach a temperature sufficient to heat steam up to the level of driving turbines? Wouldn't we even have an advantage over Venus which, after all, cannot put a glass lid on its atmosphere?

On an even more roguish note, we don't even understand gravity (for those of you who don't understand nerd-authored physics, see this simplification), much less are we prepared to use our understanding to calculate life-favoring gravitational conditions as a functions of planetary size and density. If someone attempts to dispute this, I will be happy to illustrate further with tangible examples.

From the Realm of Abiogenesis

Planetary conditions can never be suitable for the spotaneous generation of life. At least, not so long as our Universe is only 20 billion years old. I cut and paste from this site, which is a discussion of abiogenesis by Alexander Mebane:

Dismissing as unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever have spontaneously "evolved", because of the complexity of those purine base + sugar + phosphoric acid structures,t he asks what could have been the simplest possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that might have been able to generate the essential quality of life, self-replication. Generously oversimplifying to the maximum degree credible (or beyond), he proposes (p. 296) that the first "proto-life" might conceivably have emerged from a set of as few as ten very small "primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of only 25 links, and all constructed from a set of only four amino acids, rather than the twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the real natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively of those four amino acids (which is of course, a simply ridiculous postulate), he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable conditions, the probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally, forming the requisite set of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So, if something like 10^150 random trials were available, the thing might really have happened. But he had previously calculated (p. 126) that, if one assumes that the Earth was covered by a 10-km-deep layer of "soup", and that random trials went on at the rate of one billion per second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a cubic millimeter) of that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that really elapsed before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could be made. (I have checked this calculation, and found it correct.) This number is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural formation of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most favorable assumptions conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take seriously the proposition that "Life on Earth must have arisen spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way...

Conclusion

Now, for those of you who don't understand why all of these problems with the methods of the scientists who dedicated themselves to this frivolous study render the study a complete waste of human resources, I will explain. This kind of conjecture is much like man's early attempts to fly by pasting feathers onto one's arms and jumping off a cliff. This was a waste of time, perfectly good paste and feathers, and a waste of a (debatably) valuable human life. No scientific progress was gained by performing this feat. It was based upon erroneous presuppositions. The only good it did was to serve as an example of what not to do.

Leave conjecture to SciFi writers. They're better at it (and they don't spend nearly so much time or energy doing so.)

Astrophysics and abiogenetical biology are the two most FUBAR branches in all of Science. Both branches religiously attempt to rectify random creation with probability. When the attempt fails, they brush aside the entire problem, as they believe their models are the only possible explanation short of God. The fact of the matter is that we know nothing about how our universe came into existence, or how life began in the Universe, save that all our current models could not be true. Unfortunately, instead of trying to find new models, we have defended them with a fervor rivaling the most devout zealots of any religion (with less excuse for doing so than any religious person.)

What many people forget is that one solid piece of negative evidence absolutely refutes a theory, regardless of how much favorable evidence that theory has behind it. For example, the equation:

(bn - 1)/(b - 1) = b(n-1) + ... + b2 + b + 1

works for all b and n. Well, all b and n except b = 1, and all n > 0. That's an incredible success rate for the equation. There are literally infinte conditions it satisfies. Yet, Mathematicians would rightfully scorn anyone who suggested that the formula was viable and that just because it didn't work in a few anonomalous circumstances doesn't mean that it shouldn't be adopted as a general rule. To suggest such a thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Scientific Method.

Yet the great majority of astrophysicists and geneticists/evolutionists (whom I collectively called abiogenetical biologists, those who concern themselves with the origins of life from nonlife) carry this misunderstanding. I will list some general problems with which the two branches have yet to contend (and will never be able to do so as long as they adhere to their current models) and then--for the dimmer of you--explain why basic flaws in our models mean that the conjecture about a "habitable zone" is a waste of our time, bandwidth, and brainpower.

From the Realm of Astrophysics

I have seen many posts attempting to describe planetary surface temperature as a function of atmospheric gases and distance from the sun. This has been tried with Venus (viz. Sagan et al.) and has failed miserably. Sagan attempted to explain Venus' 800 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature by attributing it to a "Super Greenhouse" effect. Gunnar Heinsohn had a nice response to that absurdity:

If the Venus gases enable a runaway greenhouse effect of 800 degrees F wouldn't that allow us to solve all our energy problems, i.e., wouldn't that give us a perpetuum mobile? Shouldn't we put a Venus gas mix in a glass box, expose it to the sun and, then, reach a temperature sufficient to heat steam up to the level of driving turbines? Wouldn't we even have an advantage over Venus which, after all, cannot put a glass lid on its atmosphere?

On an even more roguish note, we don't even understand gravity (for those of you who don't understand nerd-authored physics, see this simplification), much less are we prepared to use our understanding to calculate life-favoring gravitational conditions as a functions of planetary size and density. If someone attempts to dispute this, I will be happy to illustrate further with tangible examples.

From the Realm of Abiogenesis

Planetary conditions can never be suitable for the spotaneous generation of life. At least, not so long as our Universe is only 20 billion years old. I cut and paste from this site, which is a discussion of abiogenesis by Alexander Mebane:

Dismissing as unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever have spontaneously "evolved", because of the complexity of those purine base + sugar + phosphoric acid structures,t he asks what could have been the simplest possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that might have been able to generate the essential quality of life, self-replication. Generously oversimplifying to the maximum degree credible (or beyond), he proposes (p. 296) that the first "proto-life" might conceivably have emerged from a set of as few as ten very small "primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of only 25 links, and all constructed from a set of only four amino acids, rather than the twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the real natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively of those four amino acids (which is of course, a simply ridiculous postulate), he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable conditions, the probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally, forming the requisite set of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So, if something like 10^150 random trials were available, the thing might really have happened. But he had previously calculated (p. 126) that, if one assumes that the Earth was covered by a 10-km-deep layer of "soup", and that random trials went on at the rate of one billion per second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a cubic millimeter) of that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that really elapsed before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could be made. (I have checked this calculation, and found it correct.) This number is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural formation of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most favorable assumptions conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take seriously the proposition that "Life on Earth must have arisen spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way...

Conclusion

Now, for those of you who don't understand why all of these problems with the methods of the scientists who dedicated themselves to this frivolous study render the study a complete waste of human resources, I will explain. This kind of conjecture is much like man's early attempts to fly by pasting feathers onto one's arms and jumping off a cliff. This was a waste of time, perfectly good paste and feathers, and a waste of a (debatably) valuable human life. No scientific progress was gained by performing this feat. It was based upon erroneous presuppositions. The only good it did was to serve as an example of what not to do.

Leave conjecture to SciFi writers. They're better at it (and they don't spend nearly so much time or energy doing so.)

This guy has some interesting articles, including one that focuses on physics involved in the dinosaures skeletons. There are lots of links, cruise over and have a look.

Warning he is seriously focused on creationism. True or false, I'll not say but an interesting arguement either way.

This guy has some interesting articles, including one that focuses on physics involved in the dinosaures skeletons. There are lots of links, cruise over and have a look.

Warning he is seriously focused on creationism. True or false, I'll not say but an interesting arguement either way.

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Saturn/ianT

-l

http://www.bearfabrique.org/s aur opods/sauropods.html
http://www.talkorigi ns. org/faqs/sauropods/sauropods-misc.html (The section "Blood pressure would have been too high", especially)

Anybody got a link to something more recent?

This article by Ted Holden was interesting indeed.It also broadened my horizont a little, although not by design. The story so far:

Fired up /. and clicked on interesting article. It smelled fishy:

Extrapolating from human body structures to sauropodic ones was bad enough. Taking the conclusion - sauropodes were too heavy too support themselves - as main evidence that earths gravity was smaller in the Jurassic sounded like total bullcrap. What drug is this guy on? Took a quick look at the rest of his site and found a variety of themes, with "R.I.P. Evolution" sticking out. A Creationist on the loose, oh my. Still, while his arguments do sound foul, I find it necessary to check them up. Back to /. , maybe one of the posters has something valid to say. And yes, an anonymous coward and bebot point to articles on talkorigins.org. This helps. Ted Holden is known there, and is arguments are falsified in a very plausible way.

Okay, so this was interesting, I had my fun and I had some facts checked, which is always a good thing. On the other hand: Following scientific discussions from an amateurs point of view is difficult, so do raving lunatics like ted really have to be considered/slashdotted? Maybe yes, but it's still frightening that some people are that far out of touch with reality.

Interesting link referenced in this story. It links to none other than the web site of a well known creationist kook of talk.origins named Ted Holden.

The theory in his site is that dinosaurs must have experienced a reduced gravity (with respect to the present value) to be able support the massive weight of the larger species.

To support his argument he compares a very strong powerlifter to dinosaurs using the square cubed assumption for scaling (force produced by muscles goes up as a square of body length because it depends on cross section while weight goes up as the cube because it depends on volume).

Of course, the problem with all of this is that this scaling is way too simplistic since we are comparing apples to oranges (Homo sapiens to various sauropods, to be exact). Proof of this is that, contrary to Holden's claims, it doesn't even work for elephants.

From Holden's example, Kazmaier, weighing in at 340 lb., can do a 1000 lb. squat (not the strongest adjusting for body weight, see here, for an example). To see how this scales to a normal weight male (I shall consider myself at 175 lb. the norm for the sake of argument) we take the ratio my weight to Kazmaier's of 175/340 = 0.51. Taking the square cubed assumption it turns into .51^^(2/3) = .64 . meaning a normal 175 lb. person being able to lift .64 * 1340 lb. = 861 lb. to match Kazmaier's performance. As this figure includes body weight it turns into the ability to squat 861 lb.- 175 lb. = 686 lb.

Now, the most I've squatted is 450 lb. (which turns into 450 lb. + 175 lb. = 625 lb.) and I consider myself to have (for a nearly untrained person) near freakish lower body strength. I can assure any and all that I cannot move around comfortably with 450 lb. on my shoulders and can barely take some faltering steps in this situation (and, though I don't know the rules of powerlifting, I'pretty sure that the lift would not have been good enough to count in a competition --not that anyone would be likely to be impressed anyway).

Let's see what the most is that one can weight if the best lifting they can do would match my performance (better to compare myself --freakish lower body strength and all-- rather than a real athlete pushing the limits).

Using Holden's formula (which is correct, though its assumptions are flawed), we get:

625/175^^(2/3) = X/X^^(2/3)

Adult elephants, on the other hand, can weight a lot more than 8000 lb.. And to those who may point out that my own bipedalism puts me at a disadvantage, I shall point out that circus elephants seem to be able to get on their back feet with great ease (it certainly seems to take a lot less effort than it takes for me to squat a mere 450 lb.)

Thus, taking a more reasonable lift for the scaling exercise and following Holden's assumptions, not only should elephant's fail carrying around their own weight, but they should fail miserably.

But elephants, even very large ones, seem to manage quite well, thank you very much. Thus, my claim that Holden's assumptions do not really hold up under scrutiny is supported

Check out the rest of the 'Interesting Theories' site, www.bearfabrique.org.

Good for a few snickers, several belly-laughs and more than the USRDA of disbelieving head-shakes. It makes a strong case for Prozac and Lithium.