| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"kidigus" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2005 07:02:28 AM |
| Object: |
The probability of life. |
I have a meathead type observation. I've read that the probability of
forming a given 300 amino acid long protein randomly is (1/20)300 or 1
chance in 2.04 x 10^390. Now that is a huge number. What it doesn't
show is that this protein didn't form randomly.
'Cause the thing is...it did.
I've seen some things that defy probability if you look at it the right
way. Take for instance March 24, 2001; it's the seventh inning of a
training game for the Arizona Diamondbacks and the San Francisco
Giants. Randy Johnson hurls a 97 mph fastball that misses the catcher
and happens to destroy a pretty little dove that happened to be in the
wrong place at the wrong time. Now we can ask all kinds of questions
here, and the probability will change depending on the question. We
could ask (as the above question regarding the amino acid does), "What
is the probability that THAT DOVE would be FLYING through THAT
PARTICULAR SPOT at THE EXACT MOMENT that RANDY JOHNSON'S FAST BALL is?"
The chances of THAT happening are near impossible. But it did happen.
The probability will increase if we change "THAT DOVE" to" A DOVE" and
even higher if we change it to "A BIRD" or change "RANDY JOHNSON" to
"A PITCHER" or "A BASEBALL PLAYER" and "FAST BALL" to "A PITCH".
Also /when/ the observation is being made makes a huge difference. If
the bird in question was in the stadium five minutes before his demise
and the question was asked you need only calculate the limited space
available to a bird that size over a five-minute period. However if you
calculate the probability when the bird is still in it's egg that this
is the fate meant for it then the number is almost meaningless.
While all of these numbers dance and astound we are left with the fact
that (that) (dove) was (flying) through (that particular spot) at (the
exact same time) as (Randy Johnson's) (Fast ball) on (March 24, 2001).
It seems impossible if you only look at it the right way.
If you take the bird-getting-hit-by-a-thrown-baseball phenomena and
expand your observation to include the entire history of baseball over
the entire planet, the probability starts to look more manageable.
It's still extremely unlikely, but not outrageously so.
By the way, Dave Winfield also killed a bird with a thrown baseball in
1983, so the above scenario is not only possible but it is also not
without precedent.
Ideas? Comments?
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
23 Nov 2005 02:16:41 AM |
|
|
"kidigus" <kidigus@gmail.com> wrote in news:1132642948.541843.278570
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I have a meathead type observation. I've read that the probability of
forming a given 300 amino acid long protein randomly is (1/20)300 or 1
chance in 2.04 x 10^390. Now that is a huge number. What it doesn't
show is that this protein didn't form randomly.
'Cause the thing is...it did.
Virtually any amino acid sequence will have some sort of potentially useful
function. Conversely, it is highly unlikely that any proteins that are in
use in living things are in any way optimal. Life just gets by with the
best available and that means just small stepwise changes from what is
already there. The above calculation is bogus because it doesn't take into
account how the particular protein came about. in other words the selection
of amino acids is not random, it is constrained. Without any other example
of living systems except what we have on earth, there is no way to figure
out how to even do the probability calculation. Also you have to be very
careful about probability calculations. What's the probabilty that all the
lottery winners on earth of the last hundred years happenned to be just
those particular people wuinning those particular lotteries?
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
22 Nov 2005 12:39:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:02:28 -0800, kidigus wrote:
I have a meathead type observation. I've read that the probability of
forming a given 300 amino acid long protein randomly is (1/20)300 or 1
chance in 2.04 x 10^390. Now that is a huge number. What it doesn't show
is that this protein didn't form randomly.
'Cause the thing is...it did.
I've seen some things that defy probability if you look at it the right
way. Take for instance March 24, 2001; it's the seventh inning of a
training game for the Arizona Diamondbacks and the San Francisco Giants.
Randy Johnson hurls a 97 mph fastball that misses the catcher and happens
to destroy a pretty little dove that happened to be in the wrong place at
the wrong time. Now we can ask all kinds of questions here, and the
probability will change depending on the question. We could ask (as the
above question regarding the amino acid does), "What is the probability
that THAT DOVE would be FLYING through THAT PARTICULAR SPOT at THE EXACT
MOMENT that RANDY JOHNSON'S FAST BALL is?"
The chances of THAT happening are near impossible. But it did happen.
Obviously, some "Intelligent Executioner" wanted to kill that dove in a
particularly interesting way.
I ordered new license plates for my car. I got the number XJ4-39M! The
odds of getting that particular plate were about 2 BILLION to ONE!!! Wow.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
22 Nov 2005 01:06:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:02:28 -0800, kidigus wrote:
Ideas? Comments?
This is called the Anthropic principle.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tervicz" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
22 Nov 2005 04:49:48 PM |
|
|
Take a bag and 10 marbles of which 9 are black and 1 is white. Putthe
marbles into the bag, shake the bag and then pick out 1 marble at
random without looking. What are the chances you'll pick out the white
ball? 1 in 10 or according to some highly unlikely. So far so good. But
there is more to the laws of chance.
Take some paper and create two columns, one for white and one for
black. Note what colour your marble had and return it to the bag. Shake
the bag and take out one marble at random. Note the colour and repeat
ten times, a hundred times, if you can do it a million times.
What will happen? Occasionally you will draw the white marble. And the
more you repeat the experiment the closer the number of white marbles
drawn will come to 10% of the total number of marbles drawn. So even
though the chance of drawing the white marble seems slim the marble
does get drawn.
The chance of something happening is actually irrelevant if you cannot
verify the number of experiments performed. In case of the chance of
life being formed "sponatniously" this is no different. How many stars
are there in this galaxy, and the universe? And how many planets, moons
and asteroids orbit each of these stars? If each single one of these
planets, moons and asteroids represents just 1 experiment then the
spontanious formation of life might not be unlikely but certain.
In the case of the formation of amino acids however the case has
already been made. Dr Miller's experiment in the 50's showed that basic
elements put into a circulation and under influence of heat, electric
current and condensation produced amino acids 'spontaniously' in a
week. The experiment was repeated in the 70's and the same results were
found. One week. How many weeks are there in a million year?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
22 Nov 2005 12:53:56 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "kidigus" <kidigus@gmail.com>
posting the following on 21 Nov 2005 23:02:28 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
I've seen some things that defy probability if you look at it the right
way. Take for instance March 24, 2001; it's the seventh inning of a
training game for the Arizona Diamondbacks and the San Francisco
Giants. Randy Johnson hurls a 97 mph fastball that misses the catcher
and happens to destroy a pretty little dove that happened to be in the
wrong place at the wrong time. Now we can ask all kinds of questions
here, and the probability will change depending on the question. We
could ask (as the above question regarding the amino acid does), "What
is the probability that THAT DOVE would be FLYING through THAT
PARTICULAR SPOT at THE EXACT MOMENT that RANDY JOHNSON'S FAST BALL is?"
The chances of THAT happening are near impossible. But it did happen.
I saw that game. The bal didn't miss the catcher, the dove flew
directly into the path of the ball. All you saw was a flash of white
and then an explosion of feathers.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
22 Nov 2005 07:39:06 AM |
|
|
kidigus wrote:
I have a meathead type observation. I've read that the probability of
forming a given 300 amino acid long protein randomly is (1/20)300 or 1
chance in 2.04 x 10^390. Now that is a huge number. What it doesn't
show is that this protein didn't form randomly.
'Cause the thing is...it did.
I've seen some things that defy probability if you look at it the right
way. Take for instance March 24, 2001; it's the seventh inning of a
training game for the Arizona Diamondbacks and the San Francisco
Giants. Randy Johnson hurls a 97 mph fastball that misses the catcher
and happens to destroy a pretty little dove that happened to be in the
wrong place at the wrong time. Now we can ask all kinds of questions
here, and the probability will change depending on the question. We
could ask (as the above question regarding the amino acid does), "What
is the probability that THAT DOVE would be FLYING through THAT
PARTICULAR SPOT at THE EXACT MOMENT that RANDY JOHNSON'S FAST BALL is?"
1.
The chances of THAT happening are near impossible. But it did happen.
The probability will increase if we change "THAT DOVE" to" A DOVE" and
even higher if we change it to "A BIRD" or change "RANDY JOHNSON" to
"A PITCHER" or "A BASEBALL PLAYER" and "FAST BALL" to "A PITCH".
Also /when/ the observation is being made makes a huge difference. If
the bird in question was in the stadium five minutes before his demise
and the question was asked you need only calculate the limited space
available to a bird that size over a five-minute period. However if you
calculate the probability when the bird is still in it's egg that this
is the fate meant for it then the number is almost meaningless.
While all of these numbers dance and astound we are left with the fact
that (that) (dove) was (flying) through (that particular spot) at (the
exact same time) as (Randy Johnson's) (Fast ball) on (March 24, 2001).
It seems impossible if you only look at it the right way.
If you take the bird-getting-hit-by-a-thrown-baseball phenomena and
expand your observation to include the entire history of baseball over
the entire planet, the probability starts to look more manageable.
It's still extremely unlikely, but not outrageously so.
By the way, Dave Winfield also killed a bird with a thrown baseball in
1983, so the above scenario is not only possible but it is also not
without precedent.
Ideas? Comments?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
22 Nov 2005 10:14:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:39:06 -0600, Chris Johnson wrote
(in article <1132645146.357003.199790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
kidigus wrote:
I have a meathead type observation. I've read that the probability of
forming a given 300 amino acid long protein randomly is (1/20)300 or 1
chance in 2.04 x 10^390. Now that is a huge number. What it doesn't
show is that this protein didn't form randomly.
'Cause the thing is...it did.
I've seen some things that defy probability if you look at it the right
way. Take for instance March 24, 2001; it's the seventh inning of a
training game for the Arizona Diamondbacks and the San Francisco
Giants. Randy Johnson hurls a 97 mph fastball that misses the catcher
and happens to destroy a pretty little dove that happened to be in the
wrong place at the wrong time. Now we can ask all kinds of questions
here, and the probability will change depending on the question. We
could ask (as the above question regarding the amino acid does), "What
is the probability that THAT DOVE would be FLYING through THAT
PARTICULAR SPOT at THE EXACT MOMENT that RANDY JOHNSON'S FAST BALL is?"
1.
snip
Exactly. 1
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: The probability of life. |
22 Nov 2005 04:07:54 PM |
|
|
kidigus wrote:
I have a meathead type observation. I've read that the probability of
forming a given 300 amino acid long protein randomly is (1/20)300 or 1
chance in 2.04 x 10^390. Now that is a huge number. What it doesn't
show is that this protein didn't form randomly.
'Cause the thing is...it did.
Think about the lottery. The odds that someone will win are 1. The
odds that you will win are 0.
it's wierd! but that's life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
