Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Mathematical Odds.; DNA being the result of...
Topic Started: May 20 2009, 04:56 AM (296 Views)
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
...spontaneous generation

The mathematical odds of DNA being the result of spontaneous generation ( forming itself) are 1 in 10 to the power of 67 (A.J. White, "Uniformitarianism, Probability and Evolution).

I can't imagine a worse set of odds. But 1 in 10 to the power of 68 is possible....I suppose.

I wouldn't bet on something if it were 1 in 10 odds. Would you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The old creationist misrepresentation that evolution is completely random rather than confined to the laws of nature. Straw man.

Dawkin's has the following answer:
Quote:
 
In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem:

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

The scenario is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters, assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28 characters will be random. The number of possible combinations in this random sequence is 2728, or about 1040, so the probability that the monkey will produce a given sequence is extremely low. Any particular sequence of 28 characters could be selected as a "target" phrase, all equally as improbable as Dawkins's chosen target, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".

A computer program could be written to carry out the actions of Dawkins's hypothetical monkey, continuously generating combinations of 26 letters and spaces at high speed. Even at the rate of millions of combinations per second, it is unlikely, even given the entire lifetime of the universe to run, that the program would ever produce the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".

Dawkins intends this example to illustrate a common misunderstanding of evolutionary change, i.e. that DNA sequences or organic compounds such as proteins are the result of atoms "randomly" combining to form more complex structures. In these types of computations, any sequence of amino acids in a protein will be extraordinarily improbable (this is known as Hoyle's fallacy). Rather, evolution proceeds by hill climbing.

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins's words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins continues:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.


Now you're sounding like breeze, just repeating the same old already debunked creation nonsense.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
That's great Chris, yet in the research, the author never used a monkey now, did he? i would venture to say that there would be enough difference in DNA, that the author would not be capable of devising a computer model let alone get a monkey to sit around for millions of years.

And there is another little fact that has not been accounted for... the DNA between any two persons is 99.1% identical... however, that 0.9% difference in our DNA makeup is very important as it accounts for all of our varied genetic differences.

And if evolution is brought into the equation, how would one with certainty make a claim that evolution was the cause of the mutation? It could very well be attributed to God.

Remember, science does not prove facts. Which leads me back to the math odds of my post. Although I found those odds at a website, are they factual? Or is it impossible to create a set of odds with so much variables? Isn't the safer bet, the one that evolution is a bit hocus pocus...when using it to debate the origin of the universe?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
The argument has the unexamined assumption that only one configuration of DNA will suffice or that the same complexity of today's DNA reflects that 3.5 billion years ago. It also assumes that the process is completely random. Chris covered this very well.

Do you have evidence to confute any of these objections?

One of the problems with "arguing" a subject about which you admittedly know nothing (ok, very little) is that you are unfamiliar with what has already been done. Breezy is floundering around cutting and pasting information that has been presented and refuted in the public press. What makes it non-scientific is that the creationists don't have the cojones to present it in the scientific press.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
...evolution was the cause of the mutation

You have it backwards. Mutation is one of the driving forces behind evolution. God is not necessary because most mutations are just transcription errors as the DNA replicates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

"Isn't the safer bet"

Eric, there's the Pascal's Wager you predicted. Isn't science fun!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Isn't the safer bet, the one that evolution is a bit hocus pocus...when using it to debate the origin of the universe?

As soon as a creationist brings forth the objective evidence supporting the creationist's origin argument, we might have something to consider.

Arguing against quantum cosmology is not the same as arguing for creationism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis