Replies

"It seems clear to me that he's talking about the occurence of life and not its reoccurrence. What else could he mean by "created life?" I mean if he were talking about the re-occurrence of it, he'd have said re-created, not so?" - edsheppa

Yes, his editorial comment appears to be talking about the first occurance of life. Watson's math, however, is valid for calculating the probability / improbability of (with slight adjustments as necessary) any data sequencing itself naturally into any desired output (e.g. one of billions of possible valid life forms).

"Further, his analogy is clearly to the probability that some specific amino acid sequence as if that were the only outcome we could classify as "life." - edsheppa

He actually dealt with that issue, as did multiple posts in this and the previous math thread. Billions of possible "correct" DNA sequences (i.e. for any valid life form) do not alter the mathematical probability / improbability result appreciably. Consider that 10^9 valid possible life forms is a neglible percentage of 10^290 potential DNA combinations. With that consideration in mind, the fact that the author used a single English sentence and "1" potential correct outcome should illustrate that his numbers erred on the side of Evolutionary Theory as much as could be practical.

"Finally, as has been pointed out many times, no one to my knowledge thinks that "monkeys typing" is a good model for the origin of life. Feel free to ask though if any evo on these threads thinks differently. I don't." - edsheppa

The analogy that the author suggested could be replaced by numerous other analogies wherein data was generated without intelligent direction, and the math for all such analogies would still be correct.

After all, the author is showing the probability / improbability for data sequencing itself naturally. The analogy used for such an illustration of the concept is hardly a matter worthy of concern (but hey, if that's all that you've got, then I guess some people will go with it).

Yes, his editorial comment appears to be talking about the first occurance of life.

Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? Don't you consider his conclusion to be the real point?

Billions of possible "correct" DNA sequences (i.e. for any valid life form) do not alter the mathematical probability / improbability result appreciably.

Who said anything about billions? What if it's not 10^9 out of 10^290 but rather 10^280 out of 10^290? The value of that parameter does significantly affect the likelihood.

...without intelligent direction...

Do you consider a selection function to be intelligent direction?