From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:26:59 GMT

In article <2m38TB5w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
|> 
|> > In article <JNi2TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> > > The book demonstrates that by adopting the hypotheses of the theory
|> > > of molecular evolution, it must follow from these hypotheses that there
|> > > is an extremely tiny --virtually infinitesimal-- probability that a
|> > > living cell could have arisen by random molecular combination under
|> > > natural selection, even given a period of time much longer than the
|> > > estimated age of the earth.
|> > 
|> > So what?  If I take a pack of cards (let's make it a Tarot deck, so the
|> > numbers are larger!) and shuffle it, the chances of that sequence
|> > occurring are 1 in 78!  Now thanks to the ever-wonderful CMU Common
|> > Lisp, I can evaluate that:
|> > 
|> > 11324281178206297831457521158732046228731749579488251990048962825668835325234
|> > 
|> > Roughly 1 in 10 to the 115.  Now by most people's measurement, that's a
|> > rather small possibility.  But I only had to do it once to achieve that
|> > result!
|> 
|> Yes. So you agree with us that it takes an intelligent being to create
|> the conditions under which a particular configuration of matter
|> --distinct from other configurations-- can arise. This must be true,
|> since you shuffled the deck, and we are supposing that you are an
|> intelligent being.


Don't be silly!  You could replace him with a mechanical shuffler and the 
probabilities would be the same.


|> 
|> > My father could generate 2^23 distinct sperm.  My mother could produce
|> > 2^23 distinct ova.  Therefore, the chances of my existing are (2^23)^2,
|> > or 2^46.  Now that's not such a large number: 1 in 70368744177664.  But
|> > my parents are the product of the same chance.  My father is only one of
|> > the 70368744177664 children his parents could have produced, my mother
|> > likewise, and I likewise of them.  So that allows us to cube the number
|> > to 348449143727040986586495598010130648530944 before we even worry about
|> > the chance of them meeting.  And their parents.  And their parents.
|> 
|> Again, then, you agree with us that life comes from life, since, as you
|> say, it was your parents who produced you.


Fine, but are you suggesting that life can come from some "higher" form of life,
instead of life on its own ontological level?  If you're saying that "life comes
from life" well, fine, but it seems to me you're not.  Rather you're saying
"terrestrial life comes from Divine life", which in my mind is just as fuzzy, and
logically more difficult to defend than saying it arose out of biochemical 
processes.  In my mind, the latter is an easier proposition to falsify or 
confirm to many people than your divine hypothesis, which in fact cannot be
confirmed or falsified.


|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Kalki "Show me a program without a programmer" Dasa
|> 
|> 
|>        -------------------------------------------------------
|>       |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
|>       |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
|>       |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
|>       |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
|>       |                                                       |
|>       |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
|>       |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
|>        -------------------------------------------------------


Loren "show me a logical religious argument without a contentious and
untestable, unverifiable fundamental divine postulate" King

MIT