Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
This is part two of the famous "Million Monkeys Typing On Keyboards for a Million Years Could Produce The Works of Shakespeare" - Debunked Mathematically.
For the Thread that inadvertently kicked started these mathematical discussions, Click Here
For the Original math thread, Click Here
The more interesting question by far is "What drives you people to so desperately seek ultimate 'answers' that do not involve God?" You simply have no case. It is obvious that the universe was indeed intelligently designed. The part of that design that we think we understand are called laws of physics or laws of nature. Science is engaged in discerning only the surface of that intelligence, breast thumping by the so-called scientists notwithstanding. But "intelligence" is a wholly inadequate word here. The capacities required are so far beyond genius that humanity can only hope ever to plumb the shallowest of its depths.
Wanna bet? You are giving me 17 billion years and 1 billion correct (i.e., life generating/sustaining/whatever) 96 base-pair-long sequences. Groovy.
Assume that life began in Earth's oceans. The average volume of the ocean is 1.35E18 m^3 or 2.03E27 mm^3. Assume also that, on average, one 96-base pair generating reaction takes place in each cubic millimeter of water each second for 17 billion years. In 17 billion years there will have been 1.09E45 reactions.
Now, there are 4^96 potential 96 base-pair-long sequences. If 1 billion of those are life sustaining, then the chances of a single, random 96 base-pair-long strand being "correct" is 1 in 6.28E48.
From the original article, the "Magic Monkey Formula" for very large numbers approximates (and I quote):
the formula P = 1-(1/(e^R)), where P is the probability of success, R is the ratio of number of trials to number of possible outcomes, and e is a popular mathematical constant having a value of about 2.71828.
R = 1.09E45 / 6.28E48 = 1.74E-4
P = 1-(1/e^1.74E-4) which is roughly equal to 1 in 5759.31.
There are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way. Assume that only 1 in a billion have an Earth-type planet. The odds of life developing in the Milky Way are about 1 in 29.
Now, the Local Cluster of galaxies (of which the Milky Way is part) contains about 30 galaxies. The Milky Way is one of the biggest, so let's say that, on average, there are 50 stars in each galaxy with a planet comparable to Earth. Your odds of life developing in 17 billion years are now better than 1 in 4.
It's past my bedtime and my eyes are starting to cross, so feel free to point out any errors I made in the application of the formula or the calculation thereof. My assumptions, of course, are still up for debate.
96 base pairs is the maximum possible natural limit per the math in this thread, not the minimum number of required base pairs for life. An amoeba will have over 600 Million base pairs for its life in its DNA...
Are you further suggesting that we ignore the odds of any intermediate step at all? That the chain must appear, fully funtional, all at once? That, for example, a 10 base-pair-long strand links with a chain of 6 and then encounters a chain of 20 somewhere else?
And finally, are you suggesting that there is only 1 possible planet upon which life can arise?
For the probability of a single reaction producing at once a chain of 96 that is the single magic target sequence, the math works. No one is arguing with the calculations. The arguments people are making are simply that this particular mathmatical model makes several unfounded assumptions regarding the mechanisms of chemical interactions and the absence of intermediate reactions (to say nothing of the complete ommission of any type of catalyst), and is an incorrect representation of the possibility of abiogenisis.
Also, I would like to reiterate what one poster has already pointed out, that the mathematics are a model for abiogenisis, not evolution. The two are related, but the are not inseparable.
Yes, math in general works and no one is arguing with the calculations per se. I'm unaware of anyone ever claiming that Life could be either created or sustained with a DNA strand comprised of 96 or fewer base pairs, however.
Do you have evidence that would substantiate such a claim, or is that speculation on your part?
Just to be clear, the math proof for this thread does not deal with an instantaneous formation of data, but rather with the formation of data in the proper sequence over time.
By definition, math for sequences does not ignore intermediate steps.
Typically, you are misunderstanding what it is about. The math deals with instantaneous format of DNA, NOT because it happens in a fraction of a second but because it is talking about a single molecule that is formed in one process.
The objections pointing out this isn't how it would happen aren't objecting to it taking some time to do, they are objecting to the idea that the entire molecule would be formed in one operation.
You still haven't dealt with the other issues brought up. Why don't you address those? Why don't you acknowledge that this mathematical excercise is meaningless, as is implied when you admit it applies to a random process? Why don't you correct yourself?
Do you have evidence that would substantiate such a claim, or is that speculation on your part?
It would be speculation on your part to claim even 96 pairs were required. You don't know that.
No, you are incorrect. Each monkey in the analogy types letters one at a time for years, rather than typing all of its output simultaneously as you claim.
Thus, the math deals with the sequence of data, not with instantaneous data.
Do you have evidence that would substantiate such a claim, or is that speculation on your part? - Southack
"It would be speculation on your part to claim even 96 pairs were required. You don't know that." - mlo
On the contrary, I'm basing my position on the evidence at hand. One of the simplist life forms, an amoebae, requires more than 600 Million base pairs of data in the proper sequence in its DNA in order to form.
If you want to claim that Life can be formed with 96 or fewer base pairs, the burden is on your shoulders, not mine, to demonstrate how such an imaginary thing is realistic.
I am unware of you providing a concise definition of life. What characteristics must a certain compound exhibit in order to be considered "alive." Your hypothesis sets the bar artificially high, and you have yet to acknowledge feedback mechanisms.
Southack: No, you are incorrect. Each monkey in the analogy types letters one at a time for years, rather than typing all of its output simultaneously as you claim.Thus, the math deals with the sequence of data, not with instantaneous data.
You need to re-read the original article before we go on:
For the sake of convenience, we'll be so kind as to rig up the typewriters so that they automatically partition the monkey-output into documents which are the same size as the one we want . . . Instead of talking about the number of monkeys, let's talk about the number of trials we need to ensure a certain chance of success, where one trial is simply one document that a monkey has produced at random. You can then compute the number of monkeys you need based on the amount of time you have and how long it takes a monkey to perform one trial.
It's quite clear that the author is talking about discrete trials, not a continuous data stream. I expected you to be more familiar with your own article.
Your proof is a strawman for it sets out disprove a conjecture which no one would make to begin with.
I doubt that upping the quantity of correct sequences by a few Billion (from 1) will appreciably alter the calculated probability, especially if the time limit is contained to the existence of Earth (say, 17 Billion years to be generous).
The difference is qualitative, not quantitative. If we compare getting the correct sequence with target shooting upping the number of correct sequences would be equivalent to increasing the size of the target. My point is that changing the definition of 'correct' to 'supports life' is equivalent to defining the target to be whatever you hit providing groupping is good enough. Taking into account the fact that 'the shooter' learns with time (feedback) I'd say the probability of getting high scores increases much faster compared to just making the target bigger.
You may take issue with declaring the target to be whatever the shooter hits but I think it's a good analogy - the process in question does not need to arrive at a particular target established in advance (blind watchmaker), it only needs to produce results that are complex enough.
Regards.
The math does not consider the likelihood of the combination of pre-existing component parts. It only considers a single sequence, assembling itself from scratch. The real world would involve little components forming, and not really at random, but following the strict rules of chemistry. When billions of such parts are floating around, there is the eventual likelihood of larger parts forming, and so on until we get to a self-replicator. The math doesn't consider this chain of events at all.
In explaining my precise position on this, accurately and vividly, I am sure to offend you or another reader. I'm not sure if the burden to apologize for this in advance should properly lie with me -- though I'm offering the reasons behind my personal beliefs, those beliefs are not free from inherent criticisms of others for "accepting Jesus" nor do they have a benign stance toward organized religion as a whole.
Let me just state my malice is toward certain ideas and aspects of them and in my heart I hold nothing but compassion and concern for the holders of the ideologies I criticize.
That done, I will be blunt...
It took a long time to come to any rational opinion on this matter. I was not raised religious, and because of that my initial views were held without real foundation and on an admitted ignorance.
A statistical type of cost/benifit analysis of religion, or arguments along those lines are ludicrous from the start, you can never delinate what-is-what, but a type of defense of religion is made on the basis of the same type of argument: the baby and the bathwater.
Its seems only religion is allowed this type of cohesion, this all-or-nothingness where hopefully the sum result to mankind is positive -- even if not achieved in your personal lifetime.
Even now you can find people who will claim religion hasn't caused anything detrimental whatsoever -- and that all the things you show them are just "misuse" of religion or "growing pains" of mankind. To them I guess, the baby is worth whatever bathwater it requires. Bloodbaths even.
Criticism of aspects-of religion usually falls on deaf ears, the reasoning being "it is what it is" -- that religion reflects a REALITY and we must take it or leave it.
Let me digress a moment to explain something that is applicable here, it comes from a study of behavior in nature by ethologists, my source is the author Richard Dawkins -- a name that will make the creationist bristle because he has taken the scholarly aspects of evolution and 'popularized' them, making the topic suitable for mass consumption. I have read three books of his, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Extended Phenotype. I recommend his works highly for skeptics and non-skeptics alike.
An idea referenced in one of his books is that of an "evolutionary stable strategy" for survival, or ESS. This idea owes a lot to game theory in that it dictates the principle that "the best strategy for you is dependent on what strategy is supported by group consensus".
To illustrate it, the evolutionary ethologist is faced with a dilemma in nature:
The subject is the behavior of a certain specie of spider. This spider, when confronted by a member of his species invading his lair, will immediately abandon his lair to seek another instead of defending his interests and assets toward survival. It is a problem for the evolutionist to explain how such selflessness could evolve because those who had such nature would experience a net loss and hence the behavior would die out.
This behavior is indeed rare, but there are other simular behaviors that ESS explains to an extent also. The spider in our story goes on to 'evict' another spider with no effort or risk to himself. The reason this whole behavior is profitable, ESS explains, is because the majority practice it: If a mutant 'liar defender' arises in the gene pool, he would suffer because he would be overwhelmed by invaders (who are not disposed by nature to be passive when they are invading as they are when being invaded).
Now, back to Christianity, religion, right and wrong and human ethics...
Christianity is much like the ESS of those spiders. It would be 'great' and profitable if the whole world, or most of it, would adhere to its principles. But, on the other hand, taken to extreme, those ideas are much like a self-imposed communism. It is an appeasement of agressors.
Please understand I am only highlighting aspects in a grey topic, I am not saying Christianity is absolute passivity nor the irreligious absolute immoralists.
I do think however that Christianity is/was an attempt to achieve an ESS that failed.
Let me break down how I see Jesus first: There is the man-Jesus, the myth-Jesus, and the man-God-Jesus.
The first, and even the second of these I can a do respect for what they are and/or have become to a large extent. But here is what I think happened to the Church, the initial story-of Jesus was an inspiring one, it had marketing-potential in the religious context, but -- just as it is detrimental in the end to use steroids, the Church has a price to pay. That price is that it is now effectively rotten at its core because it is founded on an idea that is good for PR but makes for a weak religion.
Heres where I get blunt.
Christianity, (as well as other religions), are infected with death worship and fatalism. This is illustrated by the heaven-and-hell obsession, the end-times fatalism, and makes Christianity a dead-guy-on-a-stick religion.
This is the virus. Just as "Choice" proponents in the abortion debate have become infected by cult-of-death-ism, so has religion.
And thus our culture follows. We are mesmerized by victimhood, especially if it involves death. From abortion to Holocaust to Oklahoma City to 9-11.
They are all the-new-dead-guy-on-a-stick, but it is really hard to see the degree that is true because we are so immersed in the cult-ure.
It's like a fish trying to 'discover' the ocean. It's like before there was no environmental movement, we weren't concious of a thing called 'the environment'.
It didn't exist.
I'm sure "what I see" is contrary to what most people see. Democratic principles mandate I am in error. People will say -- "you cannot judge what goes on in others minds, if they say it doesn't, it doesn't".
It's a lot like "if its not on TV is isn't real".
It's just someones opinion.
Fortunately, I do not need the consent of my fellows before I formulate my beliefs, and more importantly I am not obligated to accept beliefs they wish upon me.
There is a saying -- "Everything is true in a sense, false in a sense, and meaningless in a sense".
I have no expectation that the things I say will be heard in any particular one of those senses. It is dependent on the listener and where they are standing.
"Art is what happens in the space between the painting and the viewer" -- and TRUTH is not a location, it is a direction, it is a mind in motion, without fear, eternally.
Of course it does, but let me explain how so that we're clear on that point as you aren't the first to make that claim.
The math proof is making the assumption (axiomatic for our case) that data forms in sequence naturally/randomly/without-intelligent-aid.
For the math, it does not matter if the data sequences naturally in small groups that come together at later times, or one after another in one large group.
In the end, either process is eventually going to produce an output string of a certain length.
Our math is then looking inside that output string to see if our correct data sequence(s) is/are evident.
And that is mathematically valid whether the data sequences itself one datum after another or in various sized groups of data one after another.
375 addresses this point. Also see 336 if you have a min.
Maybe it doesn't matter for your math (although I believe it does), but in the real world, it matters a whole lot. Once you have an ocean full of carbon-based molecules -- which isn't terribly difficult to achieve given the natural tendency of carbon to combine with oxygen and such -- it's probably downhill from there until you get a self-replicator. And once that happens, the rest is virtually inevitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.