The likelyhood of evolution....?

Question

http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/frames_asid_310_g_3_t_5.html

Check out this link. In it, you will find a simulation that has the letters TO BE OR NOT TO BE

These letters simulate all the elements. (which just being there is strange in itself)

Now go to the letter box and type in five Rs.. These represent the correct formula for life to be created.

Notice how long it takes. Are you surprised? If it happened in the first five, you would think the game was rigged. Right?

Note: I've been doing it all day and it's still running.

Its a probability game. I explained it in my question

Biologists admit there was not enough time for evolution to happen because of the probability

I never said it was a sound analogy. This was just to make you think. You tell ME to take an evolution course but have you ever taken a creationist course. One must look at both sides, (which I have done) and declare the truth. Let me know once you've read the Bible UNBIASED!

Answer 1

There is no evolution, and could not have been, because with evolution, you have to start with something, this something would have to come from some one that could create from Nothing. Now if you can create something from nothing; what is the need of evolution, but evolution can not deal with complexities. This world is too complicated, for just mere chance of evolution, and you still have th problem of the starting point.

Answer 2

I think that the likelyhood is 13! * 5 (13 factorial times 5) or you'll need on average 31, 135, 104 000 runs before you're likely to get all 5 r's.

Given the complexity and scale of the universe, that's a small number. There are millions of atoms (elemental atoms) on a pinhead to reach the "5 r's".

Let's say there was ten billion years before life on earth. Thats only 3 combinations per year for every single atom, if there were only 13 atoms in the universe. There are billions and trillions of atoms in a single breath of air round about.

There might be around 10^80 atoms in the universe, so the likelyhood against your 5 r's being impossible would be around 7*10^78 or seven quinvigintillion to one. Very unlikely indeed.

Or rather 10^67 TO ONE, if we include the various possibilities other than 5 r's which the "13 elements" could combine into.

That's highly likely.

Voila, life!

Or something like that.

And the origin of life in aboigenisis is not really a subfield of evolutionbtw , for evolution assumes the organism.

Answer 3

Yes the comment about several billion computers is about right, but given the number of stars in this portion of the multiverse, 4 billion squared would still be a small number, but a more realistic simulation would be to determine if certain patterns are more likely than others i.e. which one would naturally form and see what happens.

However the point is mute, as there are an infinite number of "universes" so any given universe is infinitely possible and occurs an infinite amount of times.

Biologist admit? What biologists? I wish I had a dollar for every creationist misquote made about biologists and other scientists. I now take any "quote" from a creationist saying that X scientist says "y" as a bold face attempt to deceive. One or two could be understandable, but after that, no.

Answer 4

if you mean that it would be to long for random letters to form all of shakespeare you forget the power of selection.

If you allow that correct letters in correct position are retained it speeds the process up enormously. There have been some studies done, though as it will take me more than 2 minutes to find the link I leave that to you.

And as a biologist I can tell you that biologist do not say that evolution is unlikely to have happened or that there wouldn't have enough time for it. We (at least as a group) are not that dumb. I won't exclude that there are some dumb biologists though. I've looked at enough creationist websites to conclude that they are either dumb or deluded. Or both.

Answer 5

1. That's not evolution; it's an analogy for abiogenesis.

2. That's one run. If you had every computer in the world running it, you'd be done. This is simulating a process that had an equal probability of occurring worldwide.

3. Your model assumes there is only one answer. Your model rejects, "HELLO" as an answer.

4. What is the longest speech you can expect in 100,000,000 years?

Answer 6

Not interested.
Evolution, contrary to what creationists claim, is NOT random. The nature of atoms, molecules, etc. is that they REACT. They don't react randomly, but in predictable fashions.
That is why evolutionary theory is valid,... it makes predictions that can be verified. For example, before the discovery of DNA, it was thought that chimps and humans were biologically more similar than frogs and humans. We share nearly 99% similar genetic code with chimps... not nearly so much with frogs. Predicted and verified.
Creation makes no predictions, only assumptions that it claims are the result of god.
This is not science.

Edit: If you're not claiming it is a "sound analogy", why bother making the comparison?
And as far as a course in "creationism"... what a waste of time THAT would be. Anyone can read Genesis and see that it is seriously flawed. God creates light one day, and stars, the sun and moon 2 days later???
Whatever.

Answer 7

Thank you for showing again that those who reject evolution do not understand it.

This has nothing to do with abiogenesis, let alone evolution.

for an actual discussion of probability:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

* There is no such thing as "evolutionists". Do you "believe in" gravity? Are you a gravitationist?
* Evolution is every much a fact as the theory of gravity.
* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.
* There are no alternative scientific theories.
* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...
* And zero evidence against it.
* The 'discussion' is actually educated people trying to educate others.
* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.
* The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the united states.

Answer 8

This is misunderstanding the probability involved with evolution. The probability of a particular word is very small. But the probability of any word is very high. If you had this program run, but not looking for a particular word, it would inevitably find a word, if the only restriction was "any word". then you would say "what is the probability of that particular word coming up".

It is like saying you have 4 quarters. you flip all of them and it comes up heads-heads-tails-heads. the probability of that particular sequence coming up again is low. But for every sequence you get, the probability is equally low. The it is still inevitable that some sequence will form every time.

Answer 9

I will type slowly because apparently this is unclear to you. Evolution is not random.

Considering time is infinite, the likely hood of me sitting at this computer answering this question is 100%.

Please take a biology 101 and a statistics 101 class and get back to us.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, I have taken a creationist course. I read Genesis.

Answer 10

Evolution is observed to happen, so the likelihood is unity.

The simulation is concerned with the origins of life, which is a separate issue. And yes, formation of life from non-living matter takes hundreds of millions of years.