Kelly, as I pointed out in the thread on the typing monkeys over in the Science forum, it really doesn't matter how big a number you come up with in a probability calculation if your assumptions are false.
The typing monkeys story assumes the following:
1. the probability of hitting a given key is random.
2. the keys are hit in sequence, with no other relationship between successive hits. (eg the probability of the next character being and 'e' does not change if the current character is and 'a' rather than a 'c'😉
3. a specific target phrase is desired.
As an analogy to evolution therefore, the calculation is useless because every one of those assumptions is false when it comes to the way DNA is formed into genes and stuff via evolution. So for you to quote the large number in the result of the monkey story as evidence against evolution is not a valid argument.
I will go further and say that you seem to base a lot of your argument on the fact that it doesn't feel right, or feels improbable etc. I think you should seriously consider the possibility that in this case your feelings are suspect and it is time to rely on the maths and not intuition. And I am afraid the maths is against you. Ever since the theory of evolution was first proposed it has been scrutinized and not once has anyone shown that the mathematics behind it is flawed in any way. The question is not 'is it mathematically possible' (that is fairly clear to anyone who has studied it - it is possible) the question is 'did it actually happen this way', and for that, we look to the fossil record etc.
To date the only attempt to attack evolution from a logical or mathematical point of view has been ID which proposed the existence of biological systems that could not have built up bit by bit but must appear all at once - and in that case, once can use the typing monkeys argument. But to date, nobody has been able to prove the existence of such systems.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've seen Dawkin's write on the math, but his example was if I'm not mistaken
Kelly, as I pointed out in the thread on the typing monkeys over in the Science forum, it really doesn't matter how big a number you come up with in a probability calculation if your assumptions are false.
The typing monkeys story assumes the following:
1. the probability of hitting a given key is random.
2. the keys are hit in sequence, with no other ...[text shortened]... argument. But to date, nobody has been able to prove the existence of such systems.
using a combination lock. I thought that assumed there was a correct number to
be found and so thought it a very bad example. Do you have someone else' work
you could point me too?
Kelly
Originally posted by JS357No it is NOT that simple.
The formulas are the same.
If the probability P of a particular outcome R is between zero and one, where R depends on the occurrence of a specific sequence of events E1, E2, E3, etc., each event having its own non-zero probability, and where the first failure of the right event to occur at the right place in the sequence prevents R from occurring on that tr ...[text shortened]... , then the emergence of life becomes more probable, as more trials occur. It's that simple.
If the enviroment on the planet is not seup to support life, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are not present on the planet, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are presnt but not together, life will not start.
The window of what is required, how it needs to be put together are not all just
right the attempts are meaningless. If you have a limited supply of some portion
of some material and it gets ruined because it bonded with the wrong thing or
itself in such a way to not support life, again a non-starter. Everything has to be
just right, then you can start the clock then as soon as you lose anything required
the clock stops.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMy son is in Tokyo and felt scared but safe during the recent earthquakes.
No it is NOT that simple.
If the enviroment on the planet is not seup to support life, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are not present on the planet, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are presnt but not together, life will not start.
The window of what is required, how it needs to be put together are n ...[text shortened]... then you can start the clock then as soon as you lose anything required
the clock stops.
Kelly
He was safe because the buildings in Tokyo were designed to withstand any possible earthquake.
This was calculated based on our understanding of earthquakes.
We understand them because of the theory of plate tectonics (cutting a long story short).
That in turn derives historically from Lyell's account of the geology of the planet, which gave it an age of many millions of years, vastly more than any biblical estimate. It explained countless features of the landscape.
Because the age of the planet was suddenly recognised to be so great, Darwin was able to account for the evolution of species.
Darwin preferred the theory of Intelligent Design but could not find any evidence to support it. After extensive research, he concluded that chance events over a sufficient period of time account for species differentiation and the evolution of life in all its diversity.
The amount of time required to permit evolution was not infinite - just huge in relation to a human life span. The probability of evolution was not infinitesmal, but in fact quite reasonable.
The world could indeed have been different. As it happens the world we experience is the one that did happen. We know that with the benefit of hindsight which is marvellous of course. Because of this it is not surprising at all. I know the lottery winning numbers for last week's lottery but that information does not make me rich at all. You simply cannot calculate looking backwards with the same significance as looking forward.
If you take all the possible outcomes of every eventuality since Big Bang and put them in a row, including duplicates, then all are equally likely. So when you argue there might not have been life that is trivial. Not-life is part of virtually every possible outcome in the list but so what? We are not looking forward from Big Bang. We are looking back.
We are quite pleased that we exist as we do. The universe could not give a toss.
Since we do exist I am pleased that my son was safe in the recent earthquakes, thanks to knowledge that is not contained in any work of scripture.
Originally posted by KellyJayStatemnt by statement.
No it is NOT that simple.
If the enviroment on the planet is not seup to support life, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are not present on the planet, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are presnt but not together, life will not start.
The window of what is required, how it needs to be put together are n ...[text shortened]... then you can start the clock then as soon as you lose anything required
the clock stops.
Kelly
True.
True.
True.
True.
True.
But presumably you have your eyes on lots of planets, over lots of time.
You can't just deny it could happen, with out throwing out the typing monkeys.
Originally posted by KellyJayAll that is really saying is "the probability of life starting is known to be zero" thus it does not match his assumptions which he clearly stated was that it was between zero and one.
If the enviroment on the planet is not seup to support life, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are not present on the planet, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are presnt but not together, life will not start.
The window of what is required, how it needs to be put together are not all just
right the atte ...[text shortened]... then you can start the clock then as soon as you lose anything required
the clock stops.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI believe his book "Climbing mount improbable" covers it from a number of angles, not just a combination lock. But I have not read it myself.
I've seen Dawkin's write on the math, but his example was if I'm not mistaken
using a combination lock. I thought that assumed there was a correct number to
be found and so thought it a very bad example. Do you have someone else' work
you could point me too?
Kelly
I am afraid I do not know any other works on the subject, so I hope someone else can recommend something?
Originally posted by JS357No I don't have my eye on lots of planet, just one, this one.
Statemnt by statement.
True.
True.
True.
True.
True.
But presumably you have your eyes on lots of planets, over lots of time.
You can't just deny it could happen, with out throwing out the typing monkeys.
Either all the things were required were all setup properly or not, if so the window
of all things were setup properly was either a lot of time or not.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have only read one on the subject and I don't recall the guys name, he was
I believe his book "Climbing mount improbable" covers it from a number of angles, not just a combination lock. But I have not read it myself.
I am afraid I do not know any other works on the subject, so I hope someone else can recommend something?
not in the camp that evolution was possible. I don't even recall the books name,
it must have been 20 years ago I read it. I think it was called, "Dawrin was wrong"
I just don't really recall. So it has to an old book 20 years old or more. The book
dealt with DNA and numbers, beyond that I don't remember much else.
Kelly
Looked it up, I think it was:
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities by I. L. Cohen I cannot be sure
but this sounds right.
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, I think that about wraps it up on this discussion. Cheers.
No I don't have my eye on lots of planet, just one, this one.
Either all the things were required were all setup properly or not, if so the window
of all things were setup properly was either a lot of time or not.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“....If all the material required for life are not present on the planet, life will not start. ...”
No it is NOT that simple.
If the enviroment on the planet is not seup to support life, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are not present on the planet, life will not start.
If all the material required for life are presnt but not together, life will not start.
The window of what is required, how it needs to be put together are n ...[text shortened]... then you can start the clock then as soon as you lose anything required
the clock stops.
Kelly
all the materials were there for life to start -specifically, liquid water, fatty acids and RNA bases (amino acids were also present but may have not been needed for abiogenesis itself)
Give us just ONE example of a material that was required for life to start but was NOT, according to your opinion, present on the planet...........?
“....If all the material required for life are present but not together, life will not start. ...”
what natural barrier would stop them being together?
http://wn.com/Abiogenesis (you have to go to about two-thirds into the video until it starts to explain the process itself)
they were all present together in various micro-enviroments when life started so no problem with them being “together”.
“...If you have a limited supply of some portion
of some material and it gets ruined because it bonded with the wrong thing or
itself in such a way to not support life, again a non-starter. ...”
so? what about when and where it DOES happens without something getting “ruined”? and with some material not being too "limited"?
Given how vast the universe is and the fact that the right conditions for it must exist in many places, what natural barrier is stopping it occasionally happening without something being “ruined”?
“...Everything has to be just right, ...”
and everything was -all the required chemicals were there in the early-Earth and they would inevitably came into contact with each other and microspheres would have inevitably formed and occasionally enclosed RNA bases.
“....then you can start the clock then as soon as you lose anything required
the clock stops. ...”
why would something that is required be “lost” in this case? -give us ONE example of a “something” required that would have been “lost”.....
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Give us just ONE example of a material that was required for life to start but was NOT, according to your opinion, present on the planet...........? "
“....If all the material required for life are not present on the planet, life will not start. ...”
all the materials were there for life to start -specifically, liquid water, fatty acids and RNA bases (amino acids were also present but may have not been needed for abiogenesis itself)
Give us just ONE example of a material that was required for l ...[text shortened]... in this case? -give us ONE example of a “something” required that would have been “lost”.....
Seriously, you are asking this?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYes
"Give us just ONE example of a material that was required for life to start but was NOT, according to your opinion, present on the planet...........? "
Seriously, you are asking this?
Kelly
If the answer is you don't know of any such missing material then would you agree that, according to all the current available scientific evidence, every kind of material that was required was there on the early Earth?