Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Curious Mind · 04-19-2002, 02:24 PM

Hello. Today I was reading a little from a book by Gerald L. Schroeder, entitled "The Science of God". Has anyone here read it? I am pleased to see that this is not more rhetorical fundie rambling, but nevertheless it seems to be trying to reconcile design and evolution. In one part, it was argued that evolution is illogical because of the mind-staggering probability against it. I was wondering what the opinion here is about that? (That it's not random chance, I imagine?) Myself, I am a proponent of evolution, and realize that no theory is complete.

Here is an excerpt from the book:

Quote:

Humans have approximately seventy thousand genes (some researches say fifty thousand). All mammals have a similar number though not necessarily the same genes. Seventy thousand means approximately seventy thousand proteins. Proteins are strings and coils of between two hundred and a thousand amino acids. The seventy thousand genes would then be organizing some seventy million (70,000 x 1,000) amino acids into specific structures. These make up the thirty trillion cells of a healthy human. Can this arrangement be the result of random selection? Let's look at a few numbers.

First, we notice that random generation of letters by a computer, or by the hypothetical monkeys typing away on typewriters, never produces meaningful sentences more than a few words in length. That's simply because the possible number of meaningful combinations vastly exceeds the number of possible meaningful sentences. With one hundred letters in a sentence, there are 26 to the 100th ((can somebody tell me how to type exponents on here?)) power combinations of those letters. If one letter were written on each fundamental particle in the entire universe, it would take literally billions of billions of universes to complete the task of printing out the "text."

There are approximately 10 to the 18th power bits of information in all the libraries in the world. If each of these bits were contained in a one-hundred-letter sentence they would require 10 to 20th power letters. There is essentially zero chance (actually in the order of one chance out of 10 to 120th power) that any one of those sentences from all the libraries of the world would be generated by random typing. Randomness just doesn't cut it when it comes to generating meaningful order out of chaos. Direction is required. Always.

Within the thirty-four phyla that define the basic structure of all animal life, there are approximately thirty million species. If they all had genomes and geentic information as extensive as humans (70,000 genes), and no proteins were common among species, then life would be constructed of two million million different proteins. Take a model protein to be three hundred amino acids in length. There are twenty different amino acids used in life. The number of possible combinations of those three hundred amino acids is 20 to 300th power, or in the ten-based system, 10 to 390th power. Of those combinations, life would only be using one in 10 to 378th power.

Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? None emerged because none fit the requirements of life. Life has selected from the 10 to 390th possible combinations the few than 2 x 10 to 12th that work. The selection combination of that minuscule fraction of protein combinations that function for life from the vast number of possible combinations cannot have been by random point mutations on the DNA of a genome. If protein generation were a random process, then as with random word generation, the result would also be gibberish, but with it would be fatal gibberish.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Curious Mind ]

Abacus · 04-19-2002, 02:49 PM

Randomness just doesn't cut it when it comes to generating meaningful order out of chaos. Direction is required. Always.

Hence, natural selection.

Principia · 04-19-2002, 03:03 PM

Probabilities and statistical analyses are the most misunderstood tools of science. Look at the assumptions, always look at the assumptions.

Quote:

First, we notice that random generation of letters by a computer, or by the hypothetical monkeys typing away on typewriters, never produces meaningful sentences more than a few words in length. That's simply because the possible number of meaningful combinations vastly exceeds the number of possible meaningful sentences.

Assumptions:

1) DNA arose by sequential elongation via addition of nucleotides.

2) Every DNA segment is 'meaningful.' The very observation that those hypothetical monkeys can actually succeed in typing out a 'few words' is insufficient. Monkeys can only be judged by complete replication of Hamlet or some such great literary works.

3) A resolution to the chicken-egg problem: which came first, a genetic code that directs synthesis of proteins or the machinery to synthesize it?

Quote:

There is essentially zero chance (actually in the order of one chance out of 10 to 120th power) that any one of those sentences from all the libraries of the world would be generated by random typing. Randomness just doesn't cut it when it comes to generating meaningful order out of chaos. Direction is required. Always.

Assumptions:

1) The synthesis of DNA occurs independent of previous synthesis. In other words, If the nucleotide sequence ACTGCTA was laid, down, the next nucleotide sequence would be completely independent of it. [Biochemically speaking, the very fact, A pairs with T, and G pairs with C and the observation that ssDNA has the ability to form hairpin loops (i.e. self complementation) would indicate otherwise.]

2) Only 'meaningful' sentences are those found in the libraries of the world, all of whom use of course the Roman alphabet. Typewriters? Chinese or American?

3) The 'meaningful' genetic analogues must produce existing protein structures. [Are there no other protein structures that are functional that are not yet found in all organisms? Isn't the fact that there is homology across species suggestive?]

4) There is no direction in evolution.

Quote:

If they all had genomes and geentic information as extensive as humans (70,000 genes), and no proteins were common among species, then life would be constructed of two million million different proteins.

Assumption:

1) That there are no proteins common among species.

Quote:

There are twenty different amino acids used in life. The number of possible combinations of those three hundred amino acids is 20 to 300th power, or in the ten-based system, 10 to 390th power. Of those combinations, life would only be using one in 10 to 378th power.

Assumptions:

1) Of the 10^390 supposedly different 300 aa proteins, none of them could possibly have the same function as the original protein. This is the standard, any-mutation-is-lethal theory held by fringe groups.

2) There are only 10^12 300-residue proteins in existence, and each 300-residue had equal probability of being formed. How does one arrive at that conclusion?

3) All amino acids are generated with equal probability.

Quote:

The selection combination of that minuscule fraction of protein combinations that function for life from the vast number of possible combinations cannot have been by random point mutations on the DNA of a genome. If protein generation were a random process, then as with random word generation, the result would also be gibberish, but with it would be fatal gibberish.

Assumptions:

1) The only types of mutational events are point-mutations. [So much for plasmid transfers, recombinations, transposons, chromosomal translocations, gene duplication, viruses, etc.]

2) Anything other than existing proteins in nature are 'fatal gibberish': a truly wonderous assertion that precludes any other form of life other than our own.

3) No other combination of proteins can produce life.

Here's an interesting mathematical question. Supposing that a DNA polymer is constructed sequentially by random addition of base pairs...

How many base pairs will be required on average to generate a DNA sequence, some part of which can be transcribed by human polymerases into a peptide? Into the shortest peptide with alpha helical structure, one of the basic components of protein structure?

Scientiae

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

Nihlo · 04-19-2002, 08:43 PM

There are a lot of alternative hypotheses that might dispell of the improbability argument. For instance, it is possible that there are a large number of universes, and that the odds of life occuring in one of these universes is pretty good. There's no evidence in favour of this hypothesis, to the best of my knowledge, but it has some explanatory and potentially predictive power.

cricket · 04-19-2002, 09:19 PM

Quote:

First, we notice that random generation of letters by a computer, or by the hypothetical monkeys typing away on typewriters, never produces meaningful sentences more than a few words in length.

"We notice that"? I don't notice that, but if that's what you notice and that's what the author notices, try this:

1) give it time (billions of years)
2) don't count on getting the very result you think you must get. for example, h sapiens *could* have turned out to have porcupine-like quills and shark-like teeth. we didn't, but we could have.
3) don't make the monkey start from scratch every time; that's not the accurate model. With each attempt the monkey gets to build on its progress.

cricket · 04-19-2002, 09:58 PM

Curious Mind,

A few months ago I was telling a friend about the monkey-and-typewriter analogy. She didn't understand the point about building on cumulative progress. To demonstrate the concept to her, I played the monkey role. Try it yourself!:

Pretend you are "the monkey". You're not supposed to know what letters are in what position on the keypad. Monkeys type randomly and so should you, for this experiment. So close your eyes and try to lose your bearings on your keypad. Then spend the next several minutes blindly pounding the keypad! Punch gently but wildly; randomly, until you have x number of lines typed.

btw try to enjoy this, since you'll be doing this over and over all night long. LOL

After each monkey-spree, examine your work and SAVE any real words that you see.

For example, on spree 1 you started from scratch. Let's say you typed 10 lines of text. Examining it afterwards, you see a string of characters that read "...trskwprdogewj...". The word "dog" is imbedded in the stream of characters. You get to fish out that word, and any other words you accidently created, and use them as a base for monkey-typing-spree #2.

during spree 2, you don't type 10 full lines, you type *nearly* 10 lines, plus 'dog'.

and so on...

Automaton · 04-19-2002, 09:59 PM

It's... beyond... words... how... stupid... this... is...

cricket · 04-19-2002, 10:22 PM

Quote:

It's... beyond... words... how... stupid... this... is...

already?, see! monkeys punching keypads CAN form words!

Curious Mind, have you read The Blind Watchmaker? I think Dawkins is the answer to Schroeder's The Science of God.

edited to revise title to The "Science" of God <cough cough>

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: cricket ]

Answerer · 04-19-2002, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nihlo:
There are a lot of alternative hypotheses that might dispell of the improbability argument. For instance, it is possible that there are a large number of universes, and that the odds of life occuring in one of these universes is pretty good. There's no evidence in favour of this hypothesis, to the best of my knowledge, but it has some explanatory and potentially predictive power.

I think that what you are talking about is the theory of parallel universe rather than evolution. Anyway, do anyone know how to prove the existence of other universes.

Curious Mind · 04-20-2002, 09:40 AM

Thank you for the responses.

Nihlo: Even though I don't know of any scientific evidence to support it, I like the theory of infinite universes. It's interesting to think that everything that could happened has, and will, an infinite number of times. Since I'm really not good with numbers (they say females are more inclined to literary knowledge, right?

(though I like to think it's more due the poor math classes you have in 9th grade, least in my school

)), I often state the possibility of infinite universes when a Christian presents the common "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God" argument. Christians should consider that more, it's interesting to think of Jesus going through every possibility an infinite number of times...

cricket: I tried typing about 3 lines of text with my eyes closed. The actual words which could be found amongst the garble were:

sad, wet, is, us, ha, suds, avid, if, do, of, or, oh, is, dot, up

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-19-2002, 02:49 PM	#2
Abacus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Dakota Posts: 2,214	Randomness just doesn't cut it when it comes to generating meaningful order out of chaos. Direction is required. Always. Hence, natural selection.

04-19-2002, 08:43 PM	#4
Nihlo Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: British Columbia Posts: 64	There are a lot of alternative hypotheses that might dispell of the improbability argument. For instance, it is possible that there are a large number of universes, and that the odds of life occuring in one of these universes is pretty good. There's no evidence in favour of this hypothesis, to the best of my knowledge, but it has some explanatory and potentially predictive power.

04-19-2002, 09:58 PM	#6
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	Curious Mind, A few months ago I was telling a friend about the monkey-and-typewriter analogy. She didn't understand the point about building on cumulative progress. To demonstrate the concept to her, I played the monkey role. Try it yourself!: Pretend you are "the monkey". You're not supposed to know what letters are in what position on the keypad. Monkeys type randomly and so should you, for this experiment. So close your eyes and try to lose your bearings on your keypad. Then spend the next several minutes blindly pounding the keypad! Punch gently but wildly; randomly, until you have x number of lines typed. btw try to enjoy this, since you'll be doing this over and over all night long. LOL After each monkey-spree, examine your work and SAVE any real words that you see. For example, on spree 1 you started from scratch. Let's say you typed 10 lines of text. Examining it afterwards, you see a string of characters that read "...trskwprdogewj...". The word "dog" is imbedded in the stream of characters. You get to fish out that word, and any other words you accidently created, and use them as a base for monkey-typing-spree #2. during spree 2, you don't type 10 full lines, you type nearly 10 lines, plus 'dog'. and so on...

04-19-2002, 09:59 PM	#7
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	It's... beyond... words... how... stupid... this... is...

04-20-2002, 09:40 AM	#10
Curious Mind Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Georgia Posts: 20	Thank you for the responses. Nihlo: Even though I don't know of any scientific evidence to support it, I like the theory of infinite universes. It's interesting to think that everything that could happened has, and will, an infinite number of times. Since I'm really not good with numbers (they say females are more inclined to literary knowledge, right? (though I like to think it's more due the poor math classes you have in 9th grade, least in my school )), I often state the possibility of infinite universes when a Christian presents the common "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God" argument. Christians should consider that more, it's interesting to think of Jesus going through every possibility an infinite number of times... cricket: I tried typing about 3 lines of text with my eyes closed. The actual words which could be found amongst the garble were: sad, wet, is, us, ha, suds, avid, if, do, of, or, oh, is, dot, up

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.