[net.origins] If You've Got the Time...CHAPTER 2

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