God, Man and Physics

"So let me ask you this. How does this have an analogy in the chemical processes that might occur to create DNA? I don't think Mr. Watson appreciates the differerences between reality and the statistics he generates, and I wish to see if you understand the fundamental differences between his argument and how the world really works. Do you?"

Yes, I do. The analogy that applies to chemical processes just as it applies to the works of Shakespeare, in the sense that randomness forms either, is that in DNA chemical processes store data just as in Hamlet data is stored.

Therefor the same math applies to randomness forming either Hamlet or useful DNA because we are using the math to illustrate the improbability of structured, organized data self-forming randomly in a chaotic, natural, unintelligent, unaided environment.

The link in Post #310 shows the results of mathematical calculations for the improbability of 17 Billion environments over 17 Billion years ever randomly forming the first line of data in Hamlet as being essentially 1 (valid to 14 decimal places). That doesn't bode well for the chances of a single planet forming more than the first sentence in even less time (the Earth is not 17 Billion years old), much less the collected works of Shakespeare or something even more complex such as the DNA code for life itself.

"Then you are so bold as to assert that simple sequence recognition software is somehow "INTELLIGENCE" and therefore out of bounds."

Yes. It is out of bounds because one does not find it in any random, lifeless, primal environment. It is also something that requires intelligence to create, thus injecting intelligent intervention into any environment in which it is applied.

If you think that such software can self-form in a natural, unaided, non-intelligent environment, then I suggest that you either show an example of such an event or go back and view the math listed in the link that I conveniently provided for you in Post #310. Once you understand the math, you'll see that your claim is invalid and in error.

"The platypus isn't the only monotreme. It has two distant-cousin species of echidna. You have nothing that suggests a designer or the lack of an evolutionary tree. In fact, you have nothing at all but the old creationist gap game."

I'm not claiming that the platipus is devoid of cousins or has no evolutionary tree (although I think it would be an interesting challenge to see you try to provide said tree).

My claim is that the platipus is an example of a big design introduction. It has at least two unique features for mammals, in fact, such as poison spurs on its feet and an electro-sensing bill.

Such big design introductions are predicted by Intelligent Design.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

Such big design introductions are predicted by Intelligent Design.

But they only happen in the gaps. You may now have the last word, which will be the same as your last four posts on the subject.

Therefor the same math applies to randomness forming either Hamlet or useful DNA because we are using the math to illustrate the improbability of structured, organized data self-forming randomly in a chaotic, natural, unintelligent, unaided environment.

The link in Post #310 shows the results of mathematical calculations for the improbability of 17 Billion environments over 17 Billion years ever randomly forming the first line of data in Hamlet as being essentially 1 (valid to 14 decimal places). That doesn't bode well for the chances of a single planet forming more than the first sentence in even less time (the Earth is not 17 Billion years old), much less the collected works of Shakespeare or something even more complex such as the DNA code for life itself.

That is not what your #310 shows. It shows that virtual monkeys could not produce a sentence of Hamlet. It says nothing about the speed with which complex chemicals might arise on an early Earth. It was explained over 100 posts ago that there are substantial factors at work in chemistry which make the formation of complex, self-replicating, information-storing chemicals far more likely than "random" chance would suggest.

Even in a "chaotic, natural, unaided" environment, there are strong selection pressures in favor of complex organic compounds. Life is not as unlikely as you might suppose.

My claim is that the platipus is an example of a big design introduction. It has at least two unique features for mammals, in fact, such as poison spurs on its feet and an electro-sensing bill.

Actually, some moles have electrical sensors on their snouts; helps 'em find nice, juicy worms, doncha know.

"I wa just clarifying your imprecision. You identified intelligent desingers in biotech labs genetically engineering pigs. I pointed out that they are human. Could you explain how it is that human biologists are proof for a supernatural being? You have yet to do so, and it would seem central to your argument that genetic engineering supports ID as a explanation for the origin of species."

Who is arguing about a supernatural being besides you?

I pointed out that genetic engineers are examples of Intelligent Design because those engineers program DNA. If you care to dispute this evidence of Intelligent Design, then feel free to try, but don't try to con me into arguing about a supernatural being.

I'm showing you evidence of Intelligence creating Life. This is predicted by Intelligent Design Theory. It is not predicted by Evolutionary Theory. If that evidence destroys your own personal values, then too bad, but that's a mere by-product of the scientific process.

If you think that such software can self-form in a natural, unaided, non-intelligent environment, then I suggest that you either show an example of such an event or go back and view the math listed in the link that I conveniently provided for you in Post #310. Once you understand the math, you'll see that your claim is invalid and in error.

Again, Post 310 does not prove that. It shows that a line of text from Hamlet did not appear in a specified finite interval. That does not mean that it would not appear in a longer finite interval - say, 10^70 years. It follows that we should expect self-organizing computer programs to appear at "random", if given a sufficiently long finite period of time.

And, of course, the method for the generation of the "random" characters - monkeys on typewriters - bears no relation to the method by which "random" chemical interactions take place. Chemical interactions produce complex compounds far faster - but you knew that already.

Such big design introductions are predicted by Intelligent Design. - Southack

"But they only happen in the gaps."

It is your claim that there is a gap, not mine. I'm merely showing you evidence that supports the Intelligent Design prediction of some occassional "big design introductions".

If there are gaps in the fossil record that would refute my evidence if only the right bones were found, then it is up to you to find them and prove me wrong by presenting evidence to support your point, but claiming that there is a gap without presenting any proof of said gap FAILS to support your contention and likewise fails to contradict mine.

In other words, it is up to you to prove that there is a gap. I see no such gap. I claim no such gap. I offer proof of no such gap in the fossil record.

What I do claim is that the platipus appears to be an example of a big design introduction that is predictable by using Intelligent Design Theory and not predictable when using Evolutionary Theory.

It is increasingly clear that you do not understand. Lets start with the most basic two sequences in chemistry...Carbon and Oxygen. I think you and I will both agree that any organic reaction starts with carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms reacting to create simple hydrocarbons and water. For example, the simplest reaction between the two is: C + O ==> CO in dark clouds. Then we can get CO + O ==> CO_{2}, also at low pressures. What happens when a chemical reaction breaks down water? There is a greater nonzero probability that it will go back to CO + O, not C + O + O. We are not back at the beginning, but at some intermediate step. Let's say that we climb the ladder to a complex hydrocarbon, like caffeine (my favorite), which has the molecular formula C_{8}H_{10}N_{4}O_{2}. Oops, this isn't going to probably get us any farther on the track to DNA, right? but we don't have to completely start over, either. It will break down into some intermediate form, and there will be a non-zero probability (dependant on the environment) that a daughter product of the reaction could climb the ladder up to DNA. It is not "back to square one" as Mr. Watson put it, but back to an intermediate step. He is guilty for over simplifying his argument.

It is not 1^{359} like he suggests, but is likely a more reasonable number.

If you think that such software can self-form in a natural, unaided, non-intelligent environment, then I suggest that you either show an example of such an event or go back and view the math listed in the link that I conveniently provided for you in Post #310. Once you understand the math, you'll see that your claim is invalid and in error. - Southack

"Again, Post 310 does not prove that. It shows that a line of text from Hamlet did not appear in a specified finite interval. That does not mean that it would not appear in a longer finite interval - say, 10^70 years." - cracker

Then you didn't understand the math. The math SPECIFICALLY shows that you can calculate the odds of probability/improbability for the longer time period.

You have not done so. If you aren't willing to use math to refute the math that I posted, then you are unscientific. come back when you are willing to post the probability/improbability calculations for your longer time period and then we'll discuss the chances of the first sentence of Hamlet self-forming randomly.

By that point you might even understand how much the improbability increases and the corresponding probability decreases if you increase the size of that sentence by even one letter.

Until you can work the math, you've got nothing to contribute on this point.

I pointed out that genetic engineers are examples of Intelligent Design because those engineers program DNA. If you care to dispute this evidence of Intelligent Design, then feel free to try, but don't try to con me into arguing about a supernatural being.

I'm showing you evidence of Intelligence creating Life. This is predicted by Intelligent Design Theory. It is not predicted by Evolutionary Theory. If that evidence destroys your own personal values, then too bad, but that's a mere by-product of the scientific process.

Perhaps you need to obfuscate a little more. Why don't you state your Theory of Intelligent Design. Does it have anything to do with the origin of life on Earth? When? Who is the Designer - and how do we know? I'll note that you've already given us some answers, such as the Designer's preference for efficiency and ease, so how do you know these things?

Did the designer create the universe too, or just the life on Earth? If we find life on Mars or Europa, did the Designer create that too? Was it a separate creation, or all at once?

Does ID refute any portion of evolution? Is it mutually exclusive with evolution? Why is it a superior theory?

Given that you are advocating a theory with a readily identifiable set of proponents (creationists), who have a fairly clear statement of what they beleive (God is the Designer) and why (the Bible says so), you have a large burden to meet if you are going to assert "that's not me - I'm different". At the least, you should pick a new name for your version of the theory.

It will break down into some intermediate form, and there will be a non-zero probability (dependant on the environment) that a daughter product of the reaction could climb the ladder up to DNA. It is not "back to square one" as Mr. Watson put it, but back to an intermediate step. He is guilty for over simplifying his argument. It is not 1^{359} like he suggests, but is likely a more reasonable number.

Hasn't this been settled by observation? What was Miller about?

"It is increasingly clear that you do not understand. Lets start with the most basic two sequences in chemistry...Carbon and Oxygen. ... It is not "back to square one" as Mr. Watson put it, but back to an intermediate step. He is guilty for over simplifying his argument."

That's incorrect. Watson isn't referring to the probability / improbability of chemicals to self-form. Instead, he is referring to the ability of chemicals to randomly form, store, and sequence data in an organized manner.

It is DATA "self-forming", not chemicals that are in question. Whether the data that we are looking for is the first sentence of Hamlet or the first gene in DNA, Watson's math applies equally.

To sequence that data, whether into a story in a book or into a working gene in DNA, the mathematical odds of the event happening randomly, without Intelligent Intervention, are precisely the same.

Ergo, it is you who is guilty of oversimplifying, not Watson.

What I do claim is that the platipus appears to be an example of a big design introduction that is predictable by using Intelligent Design Theory and not predictable when using Evolutionary Theory.

[Imagine appropriately uplifting music in the background.]
[Pic created by Godel.]

You have not done so. If you aren't willing to use math to refute the math that I posted, then you are unscientific. come back when you are willing to post the probability/improbability calculations for your longer time period and then we'll discuss the chances of the first sentence of Hamlet self-forming randomly.

By that point you might even understand how much the improbability increases and the corresponding probability decreases if you increase the size of that sentence by even one letter.

Dodge again. The math is clear - just as it is staggeringly unlikely that the correct alphabetical sequence will appear in 10^17 yers, it is VERY probable that it will appear in 10^70 years. Maybe you better go back to read the article. Or at least explain why I'm wrong.

As to why it becomes more difficult, that's easy too: add another character, and the difficulty increases by a factor of 34. Big deal - I guess this means we both got out of 6th grade.

"Dodge again. The math is clear - just as it is staggeringly unlikely that the correct alphabetical sequence will appear in 10^17 yers, it is VERY probable that it will appear in 10^70 years. Maybe you better go back to read the article. Or at least explain why I'm wrong."

Why not perform your own calculations to back up your claims? Also, please explain how we have MORE than 17 Billion years for advanced order to randomly form in either DNA or even in as trivial an example as the very first sentence in Hamlet?

Is either event "very probable" mathematically per your claims? Well, we wouldn't know it from your calculations or lack thereof.

That's not scientific. That's just tossing out a claim without support.

Nice picture. Too bad you were limited to presenting that image rather than evidence that might support your wild-eyed claims...

Why not perform your own calculations to back up your claims? Also, please explain how we have MORE than 17 Billion years for advanced order to randomly form in either DNA or even in as trivial an example as the very first sentence in Hamlet?

From the article:
Place your bets now -- our monkeys are fast typists and can type the required number of characters in a single second (there are 41 keystrokes)! On average, how long will it be before one of our monkeys produces a line matching the above sentence? Well, there are 32 keys...
32^41 = 5.142201741629e+061
one year's worth of continuous attempts. The answer that it prints looks like this:
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999386721844366784484760952487499968756116464000
In our hypothesising above, we imagined 17 billion galaxies, each with 17 billion planets, each with 17 billion monkeys, each of which was producing a line of text per second for 17 billion years. And the answer is as follows:
2747173049143991138247931294711870033017962496000
Once again, in case you don't feel like counting, the answer is 49 digits long. Now, there is no guarantee that our monkeys are going to type something different every time, but even if we managed to rig up the experiment so that they never tried the same thing twice, they have still only produced 1/18,718,157,355,362 of the possible alternatives.

Multiplying 17 billion by 18,718,157,355,362 gives us the expected number of years to produce all possible strings once:
318208675041154000000000, or 3.2e23.
Thus, if we had 10^25 years, we'd be sure of getting them all. If we had 10^50 years, we'd get Hamlet's string a lot.

Satisfied?

Now, admit you were wrong.

I'm still waiting for your theory of ID, per #407.

And, of course, for you to respond to my refutations of your junkyard car and computer virus analogies, or for you to re-explain occam's razor, or to explain how human geneticists prove that aliens designed us, or how probabilities in combinatorial chemistry are similar to the monkey problem.