Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Nostargate]

If there is intelligent design, how come I have hair around my asshole?

Thats a moustache homo

[SteddieEddie]

Bastard! you made me spit coffee over my lap top:heheh:

[ThaFleastyler]

So, I'm no good with statistics, but I think I understand them pretty well.

I heard it explained over the weekend that if you were to randomly pour Scrabble letters onto a table, in a situation where there were equal numbers of each letter, the chances that the resulting mess would spell out the sentence "to be or not to be" would be:

1 / 2.8x10^42
(1 over 2.8 times 10 to the power of 42 - or 1 in 2800000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

This was based on the idea that there are 26 possible letters for each spot in the sentence, however only one works at any particular spot in the sentence, thus:

1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ... etc, which gives the 1 / 2.8x10^42 figure.

Does that sound about right?

[Zig]

So, I'm no good with statistics, but I think I understand them pretty well.

I heard it explained over the weekend that if you were to randomly pour Scrabble letters onto a table, in a situation where there were equal numbers of each letter, the chances that the resulting mess would spell out the sentence "to be or not to be" would be:

1 / 2.8x10^42
(1 over 2.8 times 10 to the power of 42 - or 1 in 2800000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

This was based on the idea that there are 26 possible letters for each spot in the sentence, however only one works at any particular spot in the sentence, thus:

1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ... etc, which gives the 1 / 2.8x10^42 figure.

Does that sound about right?

The logic sounds right, even if that is one odd scrabble kit.

But this part:

1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ... etc, which gives the 1 / 2.8x10^42 figure.

Unless I'm missing something it should be:

(1/26)^13 or more eloquently, in prime factorization form, 2^-13 x 13^-13

Still pretty slim chances

[Zig]

So, I'm no good with statistics, but I think I understand them pretty well.

I heard it explained over the weekend that if you were to randomly pour Scrabble letters onto a table, in a situation where there were equal numbers of each letter, the chances that the resulting mess would spell out the sentence "to be or not to be" would be:

1 / 2.8x10^42
(1 over 2.8 times 10 to the power of 42 - or 1 in 2800000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

This was based on the idea that there are 26 possible letters for each spot in the sentence, however only one works at any particular spot in the sentence, thus:

1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ... etc, which gives the 1 / 2.8x10^42 figure.

Does that sound about right?

The logic sounds right, even if that is one odd scrabble kit.

But this part:

1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ... etc, which gives the 1 / 2.8x10^42 figure.

Unless I'm missing something it should be (1/26)^13

That's: 4.030384466833641680555863226889793762993644563464799... x 10^-19

Instead of: 1.624399895049389811573992924131452046156478303250718... x 10^-37


Still pretty slim chances though

[ThaFleastyler]

Can you do either of the following:

1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ... etc

or

1/(26x26x26x26...etc)?

Maybe the figures I saw were the latter?

If you consider that "to be or not to be" has 13 characters, not including spaces, it would be

1 / (26x26x26x26x26x26x26x26x26x26x26x26x26), which is
1 / 2481152873203736576 (2.5 x 10^18, if you round and shorten)

Or, maybe I've got it wrong and they've used the whole sentence ("to be or not to be that is the question"), which is 30 characters, not counting spaces - in which case it turns into something a lot larger.

Either way, the odds were 1 / 2.8 x 10^42.

My point is, does that sound like sound mathematical analysis?

[Bell]

Perhaps but the point you are about to make about how that relates to evolution is incorrect.

But ill let you make it first

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I would compare evoloution to tipping the Scrabble letters onto a table, leaving the tiles that landed in the right place, picking up the rest and trying again.

I have no idea what the odds would be, but I think it would be far less then trying to get a sentence in one go.


I'm a firm believer in evolution, I said believer. After all, from a philosophical viewpoint, you have to believe that what your senses tell you is the truth. From that point of view, science requires as much belief as religion.

[Ngati_Grim]

Perhaps but the point you are about to make about how that relates to evolution is incorrect.

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[ThaFleastyler]

I just thought it would be nice to discuss science-y stuff in here for a change ...

What point are you talking about Bell?

/innocent-but-guilty comment

[Bell]

I think you are trying to suggest the odds of random mutations making a human being are very small so small infact that it is pretty much impossible and therefore god must have done it.

If so then you have missed 2 important bits of information about evolution

[ThaFleastyler]

Which are?

[ThaFleastyler]

The point I was kinda leading to was this:

If we agree that the math in the Scrabble example was sound, then can we also agree that the same kind of math applies to amino acids forming proteins?

If I understand correctly, a protein is a linear chain that requires around 100 amino acids, of which there are 22 different kinds, to function as a protein - which means the math is stacked against that happening by chance (the guy I was watching suggested something like 1.26 x 10^130).

Furthermore, he stated that some statistician named Borrell (I missed the first name) surmised that anything above 1x10^50 is practically impossible.

I'm just saying, those are pretty long odds.

[Bell]

#1 Evolution isn't trying to spell any words, what I mean by this is that there is no set goal it is trying to reach.
#2 As Spacemonkey suggested every generation doesn't start from scratch it builds on top of the last one.

Computer programmes can be written to use evolutionary concepts which workout complex puzzles in a fraction of the time it would take to brute force them.

[ThaFleastyler]

#1 Evolution isn't trying to spell any words, what I mean by this is that there is no set goal it is trying to reach.

In a sense though, since it needed proteins to form the basis of the cell (as is my understanding), it was trying to "spell a word", since only a certain combination of amino acids would form the protein, which would form the cell, etc etc. For life to form would mean that the protein would need to be formed before the cell, before the organisms could function.

Is that kind of right?

[Bell]

Oh right so you are talking about the origins of life itself, not evolution?
Yes that is still a mystery, scientists are still trying to figure out how 'rare' life is.

[ThaFleastyler]

Yeah, I guess. I'm no biologist or whatever

I just think that for someone to believe in the origin of life in the absence of God they have to believe that cells put themselves together somehow, with absolutely no help. Wouldn't that be a fair statement?



(Note: I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything - just trying to understand what I saw on the weekend)

[Bell]

I guess yes one would have to believe that.
But why does life need a creator if God doesn't?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I guess yes one would have to believe that.
But why does life need a creator if God doesn't?

Well, you can't say life has always existed, it would of had to start somewhere, at least once, sometime between now and the big bang.


I don't think an external creator is required for life to begin, it would of started very simple, simple chemical reactions. But it's a mystery for sure.

[ThaFleastyler]

I guess yes one would have to believe that.
But why does life need a creator if God doesn't?

Therein lies the whole argument really

The guy also made a case for the moral results of Darwin's work: for example, Friedrich Nietzsche was a fan of Darwin's master-work, and is famed for famously saying "God is dead"; his work and ideas, particularly around eugenics and "the survival of the fittest" later influenced the ideals of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which may have lead to the idea of the "master race", and thus the holocaust and the death of 6 million jews.

Darwin also counted among his fans Karl Marx, whose work influenced Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin, who we responsible for the formation of Russian Communism and the deaths of millions, and Mao Tse Tung, chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, who killed some 60 million Chinese people (apparently Chairman Mao's favourite authors were Darwin and Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley).

It sounds like a non-sequitur to me though. Yes, there's a common strand, but it would be near impossible to say that one would lead to the other.

[ThaFleastyler]

But it's a mystery for sure.

Maybe the most intriguing mystery we'll ever come across
... except maybe the Kennedy assassination ... lol

[Bell]

Yes that's called Social Darwinism.
And it is not what Darwin was getting at.

If your "guy" thinks the morale results of Darwin's teachings makes them wrong then I guess he also believes Christianity is wrong.

But lets not rehash that conversation again.
The fact is douchebags will always use something as reasoning for their wrong doings.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

However, the discovery of alien life, if it ever happens, will shed light on the matter. Whether alien life shares our system of DNA, or instead have something completely different. Either outcome would be of great interest.

[ThaFleastyler]

Yes that's called Social Darwinism.
And it is not what Darwin was getting at.

If your "guy" thinks the morale results of Darwin's teachings makes them wrong then I guess he also believes Christianity is wrong.

Social Darwinism - that term is the one he used.

He also played a clip of Richard Dawkins speaking casually during an interview - Dawkins might have some good points when he's on-task, but in the interview he seemed like a massive jerk and resorted to ad hominem attacks (calling people who didn't believe evolution created life "stupid" and "not sane" and stuff).

[Bell]

Yes Richard Dawkins is rather brash when discussing religion.
I watched a few clips of him last night from the BBC show hardtalk, he was discussing his book and why he is so brash.

I too think he comes on abit strong but man he really does articulate his thoughts well.
I wish I could explain myself as well as him.