quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
It's all a matter of probabilities ... and you'll find
that the problems with arguments along those lines are
vast and ranging.
Someone pointed out that the probability of an event ocurring
after the fact is meaningless. After all what are the odds of
rolling a three on a six sided dice after you've already rolled
it?
The other problem is, well, just suppose you hit all the right
proteins within the first week ... which you could do if you are
going through the whole search space the probability of not
finding the right one till the last try is just as startling
as finding it on the first try.
I guess you don't want to see the real problem. A protein contains information, and that information is submited to survival tests. Among all combinations that are possible within a protein only a few have termodynamic stability to conduct biological reactions. Natural selection will choose and preserve good and stable combinatios, and will discard the others. Nevertheless until the right ones can be selected, a blind mechanism must run through all possible combinations (unimaginable number of possible combinations). Live can not survive to these odds if information is being generated by a blind mechanism. Does this mean that God is creating this information? This conclusion can be wrong because there may be something else we don't know. After all, do we really know what chance is. But shouldn't we try to go beyond Darwinism searching for better answers? Maybe DNA, or RNA has some kind of mind capable of simulating combinations before testing them.
[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-06-2003]
I need to re-read some wokr on quantum computers ... but I think
it may be relevent to this line of reasoning.
I seem to remember that for quantum search strategies the optimum
number of states is 4, and that different combinations can be
tried simultaneously due to probablistic behaviours.
In a more direct response to your post, however::
1) Personally I am not satisfied with the analogy of information
used in a biological context ... I have reasons for this, and opened
a thread on the subject in the 'Intelligent Design' forum. I
am in a bit of a minority in this view, but my reasoning stems from
the question:: 'Do hydrogen and oxygen atoms contain information
on how to make water?'
2) 'Odds' and 'Chance' are pretty meaningless in terms of argument.
They are just basically saying 'I cannot believe that because
the odds are astronomical?' rather than investigating the way in
which the odds were generated in order to assess the model in
use.
3)My main reason for objecting to such argument is that they
appear to assume that ALL proteins found in living organisms
had to spontaneously generate in their current form for life
to come into being. I would anticipate that the chain of events
leading to life was more sedate ... starting with 'organisms' that
we may not even class as such should we came across them now.
It must be remembered that in an evolutionary model even the
simplest modern single celled organism is highly evolved.
™ Version 4.2