rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (07/24/84)
In chapter 2 of this discussion :-) I want the world to know that I did consider the appropriateness of applying A PRIORI probability to an event (i.e. we who exist) that has already occurred. However, if we are going to talk about how it all started quantitatively and you won't let me assume an A PRIORI position in the event stream then I'd be forced to shut up. [ED. Hmmmm maybe he's got something there...:-) ] Another ironic point is that I questioned quantitatively, did not bring up religion or creation ( other than to cite my sources of data were not religious), and got accused of promoting creationism. "We know what you're up to Brown...you crypto-creationist :-)" Well crypto no more - I am a creationist. SO WHAT ? My ONE second interval between tries was borrowed and I admit that it is not well thought out. However, if you get your calculator out we could try some others. How about 1 million tries per second ( 1 E+06) for ten Billion years worth of seconds. (Billions and Billions of Seconds.... Carl Sagan :-) ) In this case: Ten Billion Years = 10E+09 yrs X 3600 secs/hr X (24 X 365) hrs/yr Ten Billion Years ~= 3E+17 seconds Now let's use one million "tries" per second then we come up with : 3E+17 secs X 1E+06 tries/sec ~= 3E+23 tries in 10 billion years Comparing this to our original number of 4E+27 we are still four orders of magnitude off in time. 1 in 10000. If we move up to a Billion tries per second we are up to the 1 in 10 level after 10 Billion years. A lot better but still not a good bet when you figure that an insulin-like material is still only part way to you and me ( and the monkey). I have been told through the mail that not all the 50% of the combinations I considered should be included because they are not likely in the way "nature" is set up. Why? What I seem to be getting from the flow is "Well Bob the whole shootin' match is the result of random combinations of molecules but really they are following a `plan'." This seems to be having your cake and eating it too. Also I am told that the process will become self directed at some point. How? Do watches wind themselves ? Does water run uphill without a pump ? Sorry Jay Gould (famous author) if I'm a little slow. You need to punctuate your equilibria a little more slowly :-). I guess this is kind of a rehash of the Second Law argumentation. Do many of y'all settle arguments by asking what time it is ? One criticism is that I am using an old argument. What does the age of the argument have to do with it ? If you asked "What is the purpose of man ?" I suppose I could say "Hey Turkey, that's an old question.":-) **************************** Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga (404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784
tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (08/03/84)
#R:akgua:-90400:uiucuxc:38800004:000:1351 uiucuxc!tynor Aug 2 20:39:00 1984 I'm tired of hearing the creationists ask, "...does water run uphill?" Of course it can. How did the water get to the top of the hill in the first place? It probably rained. All you need to get the water uphill is some sunlight to vaporize some water, then a sprinkle on the desired hill and voila, The water has made its way uphill. Nobody promised that *all* of the water would make it up to the top of the hill. (Some of it rains elsewhere, or reacts with some chemicals, or remains in the air as moisture, etc.) Notice that the laws of Thermodynamics are not broken. The water and the hill argument is on the same level as the amino acid probability argument. They are both based on faulty mechanisms. The first is that the water somehow must repeal the laws of gravity to get back up to the top of the hill. The second is that amino acid X is the only amino acid that can fulfil its role (not to mention that they ignore chemical bonding and positional effects which can determine how a molecule reacts and behaves...) Evolution is not a 'self-directed process.' It does not require any internal or external intellegent force to direct it. I think 'un-directed process' is a better term. So there. Steve Tynor ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana