anotherneil
Well-Known Member
These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).
I don't see it, because I don't know what premises, assumptions, or arguments they're using to come up with such a conclusion.
Does anyone happen to know how they came up with this 10^-77 value, what calculations they're using, what premises, assumptions, arguments they're using?
If we assume a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of matter and energy, then there's no problem on the grounds of the odds being prohibitively low. Apparently they're assuming something along the lines finite amount of time, matter, and energy for the universe.
For a universe with a finite amount of time, matter, and energy, we have to also take into account "game" round frequency parameters (e.g., how many times a coin is flipped or dice are thrown in a minute, what the odds are for a result for each round, etc.).
Are they assuming that matter jumps straight from inorganic chemical elements to complex organic chemicals that can easily form into proteins, in order to justify their 10^-77 odds?
They also seem to be assuming that data and information somehow have meaning to the natural world (as if it's a thinking machine) in the same way it does to us, which seems like personification of the universe, which - in turn - suggests circular reasoning for supporting the concept of intelligent design.
I don't see it, because I don't know what premises, assumptions, or arguments they're using to come up with such a conclusion.
Does anyone happen to know how they came up with this 10^-77 value, what calculations they're using, what premises, assumptions, arguments they're using?
If we assume a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of matter and energy, then there's no problem on the grounds of the odds being prohibitively low. Apparently they're assuming something along the lines finite amount of time, matter, and energy for the universe.
For a universe with a finite amount of time, matter, and energy, we have to also take into account "game" round frequency parameters (e.g., how many times a coin is flipped or dice are thrown in a minute, what the odds are for a result for each round, etc.).
Are they assuming that matter jumps straight from inorganic chemical elements to complex organic chemicals that can easily form into proteins, in order to justify their 10^-77 odds?
They also seem to be assuming that data and information somehow have meaning to the natural world (as if it's a thinking machine) in the same way it does to us, which seems like personification of the universe, which - in turn - suggests circular reasoning for supporting the concept of intelligent design.