Posted by Robert O'Brien on July 11, 1998 at 03:19:52:
In Reply to: More math posted by Carlos on July 10, 1998 at 11:26:31:
: Robert O'Brien, quoting Walker and responding
: That’s a small number. Can we see mathematics? [Walker]
: You really show how ignorant you are here. Who in the hell are you to tell me, an applied mathematics major, that 1x10^58 is a small number? Guess what, pookie, the mass of the known universe is approximately 1x10^53 kilograms. 1x10^53 is only 1/100000 of the number I cited. The data behind that number can be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/problife.html. It was compiled by Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist. I have seen a similar estimate from another source. [Robert]
: Robert, you appear to be sarcasm-challenged. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I took Walker's "small number" comment as just that. Also, I've noticed in your other posts that you get miffed when someone dares step on your mathematical turf. Mathematicians we may not be, but neither are we mathematically illiterate.
I recognized that possibility, but since it seemed a little disjointed to me when viewed as a sarcastic remark, I decided to "rain hell" on him just in case. *Walker, I apologize if you were just being facetious.* Anyway, you are right about my "territorial" tendencies; I tend to be very protective of my discipline (and a few others). I don't believe you and the others are "mathematically illiterate," though.
: You'll need to explain what a "Jovian type atmosphere" is...
: "Jovian" refers to the planet Jupiter.
Ah. I know that Jove is another name for Jupiter (the god), but I didn't connect the term "Jovian" with the planet Jupiter. As for the article, I'll have to comment on it in another post (from what I have read, it does bring up some interesting points).
: Here is a piece of an article I lifted from another web site, for which I unfortunately lost the URL. Also, the link below is to a Talk Origins article that contains some discussion of probability.
: Your DNA is composed from 23 chromosomes from your mother and 23 from your father. But as those chromosomes were being formed for the egg and sperm cells, a bunch (perhaps 5, on average) cross-overs occurred, more or less at random along each of the chromosomes, so for each parent there were roughly 5x23 = 115 more-or-less arbitrary selections chosen from the half-million proteins your DNA codes for.
: This ignores the fact that cross-overs can occur within the proteins - I'll do the conservative case. How many ways can you choose 115 crossovers from a half-million cross-over spots? It's roughly 500000^115, right? And that's just for your father; there are similar probabilities for your mother. And so the odds against your particular DNA configuration are MUCH smaller than 500000^115. This is a very conservative guess, but it has a probability of FAR less than
: the probability in the monkey/sonnet example above.
: So clearly, it's overwhelmingly unlikely that you exist!
: What's wrong, obviously, is that almost any combination of cross-overs will make a viable human. If, before you were conceived, someone had wanted to calculate the probability of getting EXACTLY you, the odds were mind-numbingly against it. But if someone simply asked what the
: probability is that there would be some viable child, that probability is very high.
: The point is, there are a gazillion POSSIBLE different humans - and any one particular one is incredibly unlikely. But the odds are overwhelmingly likely that SOME human will result.
: Similarly, there are a gazillion possible life forms, and any of them "works". Consider how many organisms have lived on earth since the beginning - trillions of trillions of bacteria, reproducing every 20 minutes for 4 billion years. I'd be willing to bet that they're almost all slightly different - different counts of water molecules, et cetera. All are possible "solutions" to the problem of "typing" a living organism at random. Do you think what we've seen exhausts the possibilities? Not even close.
: The other terrible error is that arrangements of atoms were not tried at random until a working cell appeared. All you need is some combination that catalyzes reactions that make a similar molecule every now and then, or even catalyzes a loop that eventually makes a similar molecule every now and then. These are selected for. The combinations that work better will get more common. Better combinations will replace worse ones. That's the whole idea of evolution.
: There are 60-atom molecules that can reproduce themselves. Do you think that's the ONLY such molecule? No - there are probably trillions of such things. And then there are the 61-atom
: possibilities, and the 62-atom possibilities, and so on.