lcb

many mathematicians beleive that the new computers will be able to run previously unrunnable programs which will be able to determine whether the earth has existed long enough for the complex biological world to have evolved through random chance only without intelligent design/some intelligent designer or creative analog.I'm not trying to start an argument, just pointing out that these mathematicians believe the new computers(one of which will theoreticaaly be faster than 100 Cray computers) may be able to determine this. And I am not making an a priori judgment as to the answer, these computers may tell us that it could have been accomplished by random chance. Thanks for your input.lcb

Kevin Dorner

This has already been established well enough, and it was done without using any supercomputers at all, other than the grey one we are born with that sometimes doesn't do much more than the equivalent of playing Minesweeper and the occasional incoming ICQ message, and eight hours of pretty but meaningless screensavers every night.

Abacus

Get it right. Evolution is not "random chance." Random mutation together with natural selection is most definately not random.

Gutterboy

I'd like to see two of three of the many mathematicians you cite explain why they believe this. Sources please.

William Dembski does not count as "many mathematicians" btw

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: Gutterboy ]</p>

Starboy

lcb, how could a computer settle the ID debate? The only way to settle it is if the designer forked over the plans. That would be pretty good proof that creation was designed, otherwise it could have just been created by accident. I see computer programs created like that all the time.

Starboy

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

lcb

I just read an article in Newsweek i think about this, I will try to post a link to it when i can.and again, i am not saying what the result is.In the meantime, i dont see how this issue has been conclusively settled.are you saying it is impossible to mathematically calculate how long it would take for random chance to bring the right elements togehter in the primordial soup to create amino acids, then cells and advanced lifeforms and then for the evolutionary process to work to get us where we are now?
I thought mathematicians have been hotly disputing the amount of time necessary.Im not a scientist.But then what is all the excitement over these new computers about by these people?

Albion

Ever heard of catalysis? Things in nature aren't as random as you'd like to think they are.

lcb

no i havent heard of catalysis.what it be?

Albion

Catalysis is a chemical process in which a substance is introduced that greatly speeds up the reaction but is not consumed in the reaction. It can be a chemical that takes part in the reaction and is regenerated by one of the steps in the reaction, or it can be an inert substance (usually a surface) that provides something that makes the reaction occur at a significant rate when it wouldn't have occurred without the presence of the catalyst.

There's been a lot of research recently on the possibility that clays and crystalline rocks, both at sea level and at deep-sea vents, were acting as the second type of catalyst in prebiotic reactions. Once the products are made at the higher rate allowed by catalysis, it's much more likely that they'll be around when other substances are formed and will be able to react with them.

The original substances used in the formation of amino acids wouldn't be all that varied. Organic chemistry doesn't have many elements, it's mostly concerned with different ways of forming hydrocarbons. Once different sorts of compounds had been formed, a lot of the reactions that followed would be governed by the same laws of physics that apply to any sorts of reactions - attraction and repulsion of charged areas of molecules, stoichiometric effects, and effects of acidity, salinity, temperature, and pressure, and availability of catalysts.

You can plug "prebiotic catalysis" into PubMed and see what the abstracts look like.

Daggah

lcb, it appears you haven't read what Abacus wrote. I'm going to quote it.