h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I maintain that all humans have a longing to know where we came from. In today's society, you have two main options: creation and evolution. Now, just as there are different forms of creation among mainstream religions, there are different forms of evolution among mainstream science. It is not enough for me to say: "I believe in creation." Similarly, it is not enough for someone to say: "I believe in evolution." If you study the theory of evolution, you will see that the particulars are not agreed upon by scientists. One newer scientific theory is that evolution occured in spurts. This theory derived from the "evolutionary gaps" in the fossil record. The Big Bang theory has been revised into saying that all matter in the Universe was once contained in something smaller than a proton. It is very important when debating this subject to remember that science does not agree with itself over particulars. Mainstream scientists simply agree that natural processes "created" what we see around us.

You are comparing two substancially different things.

Creationism is a part of religion, which is based on feelings leading to beliefs.

Evolution is a theory gained through science, which is a prooven method to collect knowledge about nature in a well defined manner. (You doubt that? Your computer works, doesn't it?)

Wonko-the-Sane:

>>Creationism is a part of religion, which is based on feelings leading to beliefs.

Evolution is a theory gained through science, which is a prooven method to collect knowledge about nature in a well defined manner. (You doubt that? Your computer works, doesn't it?)<<

The "scientific" means used to "discover" the origins of this planet are not scientific. Science has gathered knowledge about nature today and has tried to show how it came about. This goes abainst the scientific process. In order to show what happened in the past, we need to have observations about the past. Otherwise we are just guessing (note that the dates of evolution are constantly changing). Can you explain your connection between my computer working today and evolution occuring billions of years ago? My computer works because it was built by man. Wouldn't it be logical for the universe (which is much more complex) to have been built by a creator?

There is a connection: computers are being build upon the knowledge of nature and are a proof that science did a good work. And so it is with the evolution theory: it is a continuing process of observation of nature, being checked and discussed by many scientiss, leading to an ongoing refinement of the theory.

Please have a look at http://www.h2g2.com/A469019, which is about who created the creator?!

There is a something in your reasoning that I don't understand. Science says that the Universe has existed for a finite amount of time. Indeed, the Universe itself is finite according to science. The reason that science believes this is because nature and natural laws are finite. Now, according to the Christian religion, God the creator exists outside of nature. Why then is God automatically ascribed natural characteristics?

I'm not sure whether science says the universe is finite. I heart of a theory of endless big bangs and collapsations.

In my entry, which has nothing to do with science, I'm speaking of everything, which includes, ehm, yes, everything. This means nature, and whats possibly outside nature (maybe we are a simulation in a computer of some aliens, there can be found some proof for that).

This everything must have come into existence somehow, right? And the first living thing must have come into existence somehow. The very first, the root of all living beings. Some believe it is a god, and some are lead to the conclusion, based on the Evolution Theory, that it was a very simple cell, the first which formed by chance, and could reproduce itself.

Do you know that when you shake all the ingredients of a tobaco virus, this virus will assemble by itself?

I must say that I have never heard of the tobacco virus, but the fact that it can reassemble itself is because it was once assembled. Becides, where did the ingredients come from?

I have been looking at some of the scientific theories regarding spontaneous generation. They have been able to create ameno acids in a laboratory environment. Amino acids are to cells what words are to an encyclopedia. Without the context of everything else in the cell, the amino acids are meaningless.

Let's say that the DNA in the first cell (according to science)contains 10000 sequences. The probablility that it will be in the "right" order for that cell to exist is 1 in 2^10000. This is mathematically impossible. Let's take it down to 1000 sequences. The probability is now down to 1 in 2^1000. This is still mathematically impossible. How is evolution possible?

And what is the propability of a god creating itself out of nothing?

Let's take the number of big bangs. Infinite. Multiply that with the number of planets. Plenty. Multiply that with the number of possible situations in a big ocean. Many. Multilpy that with millions of years. What do you get? Infinity. Or a little bit more. Whats infinity compared to 32^10000!

The tobaco virus assembles itself if you put all of its parts in one place and shake well.

>>And what is the propability of a god creating itself out of nothing<<

I believe that God always has existed.

>>Let's take the number of big bangs. Infinite. Multiply that with the number of planets. Plenty. Multiply that with the number of possible situations in a big ocean. Many. Multilpy that with millions of years. What do you get? Infinity. Or a little bit more. Whats infinity compared to 32^10000!<<

Ok, in mathematics something that has less prebability than 1 in 1 * 10^50 is impossible - 0. 0 * infinity is still 0. I have heard an analogy similar to a monkey. If you get an infinite number of groups of large numbers of monkeys working for millions of years randomly typing on typewriters, you will never get a complete dictionary. A monkey manages to spell aback. It now must spell abacus. It now must spell abandon. It now must spell abase. It now must spell abash. When this goes on for some time, all of the monkeys will make a mistake somewhere. I doubt that any monkey will reach acquital, much less zymurgy. You can't just say (I will try to paraphrase Carl Ragan, I apologise if that is spelled wrong) that given enough time that the impossible becomes possible, the improbable becomes probable, the probable becomes indefinate, time creates its own miracles. You believe in miracles if you believe in evolution.

You are not right.

1. In mathematics there IS a distinction between 0 and NOT zero.

2. Of course you can calculate the number of monkeys and the number of millions of years needed to have one dictionary. That's science and has nothing to do with miracles.

But, you see, Evolution has nothing to do with propability levels that small. The first cell had a small propability. Ok, but enough time and many universes and many planets, as I pointed out. This first act of creation started it all by chance, and I think that's not part of the Evolution theory itself. This first cell, the ancestor of all life on Earth, was very primitive, mostly consisting of it's ability to reproduce itself. Let's call it Adam.

Here we are at the point where Evolution begins, very little chance is needed from now on. All Adam can do is clone itself. And, as there are no enemies, he soon fills up everything till resources are down. The point is, there are many Adams, and his way of cloning is not so good, so there are changes to his genes, little small changes, just at random. And some of Adams' sons are better. Eve is not yet in the story, sadly.

Cain is better than Abel, so his offspring will reproduce better. But soon they face a big problem: they produce oxygen, which is dangerous to them. Ok, an so on ...

Enter Eve. Not exactly sexy yet, but on her way. So far reproduction was just cloning, giving altered genes only to the direct descenders and not the entiere population. That is changed through sex with Eve, which, as you can imagine, all will have now. Genes can now be given to the whole population (oh, must have been good times then ...), giving a real kick to the process of Evolution. Must have been a great dancing and swimming party back then.

There's another accelerator to Evolution, mother nature itself. Good as she is, she often brought problems to party life, mostly when it grooved best: by isolating populations (encourages specialisation) and by worsening the environment (One time you're luckily sitting on a tree eating bananas, the next moment you're faced with a huge glacier rushing up on you).

Wonko-the-Sane:

>>In mathematics there IS a distinction between 0 and NOT zero.<<

Only in theory. Mathmaticians all agree that in practice something with a probability less than 1 in 1*10^50 will not happen.

>>Of course you can calculate the number of monkeys and the number of millions of years needed to have one dictionary. That's science and has nothing to do with miracles.<<

It is only science because it is science's only explanation for how life began without God. It is the only possible explanation for life without God, so science will naturally hold on to it.

>>I think that's not part of the Evolution theory itself<<

It is a very important part. Without it, evolution could not take place. It had to have that beginning to work.

The changing of one species to another took a long time yes? How long? Well, let's see if it had enough time. You said

>>his way of cloning is not so good, so there are changes to his genes, little small changes, just at random<<

How many random changes would need to accumalate before you can have sexual reproduction instead of cloning? An even better question, why is sexual reproduction better for a species' survival? Bacteria did not have sexual reproduction, but they are still here and doing just as well if not better.

How many changes would need to accumulate before you can have more than single-celled organisms? Indeed, what advantage does a multi-celled organism have over a single-celled one? That's a pretty big jump. It seems that the advantage would have to be so great that we should not have any single-celled organisms left. Really, how do you have a partially multi-celled organism and a partially single-celled organism? You don't as far as I know. Does that mean that the jump has to take place in one generation? That's alot more improbability. Well, I believe that you just have to accept scientists in faith to believe in evolution.

How many suns do we have? 2^62 or something like that? Wow, that's a big a number. Now, do a 1/(1^64). Wow, that's a small a number. Zero, you say. So, you just proved, that the Earth doesn't exist. Pofff, away with you.

Oh, I was wrong with the monkeys. It's mathematics, and it's simple and you can't deny it. You can calculate it.

Bacteria do have sex. It's just a little bit strange.

Multi-celled organism still live when one cell is dead. That's a big advantage. The jump does not take one generation. Mostly things are developped that are useless and make sense only some generations later.

Wonko-the-Sane:

>>How many suns do we have? 2^62 or something like that? Wow, that's a big a number. Now, do a 1/(1^64). Wow, that's a small a number.<<

That does not have anything to do with probability.

>Multi-celled organism still live when one cell is dead. That's a big advantage.<<

Ok

>>The jump does not take one generation.<<

Ok

>>Mostly things are developped that are useless and make sense only some generations later.<<

So are you saying that the organism says to itself, ok, I will make this thing here so that someday I may... That is preposterous. If the changes are random, how can a group of changes naturally group together and produce a better organism? You just made evolution alot more random than you said earlier.

If something has a probability of occuring each time of P, and a number of trials N take place, then the probability of it occuring at all is 1-((1-P)^N.)

According to mathematics, for all P>0, when N is infinite, then 1-((1-P)^N is one.

--

Just thought a little maths might help your discussion of probability.

This post has been removed.

Thanks Lucinda for giving the formula. What is a simple cell compared to eternity!

Nosretep, it gives me quite a good feeling that we've managed to talk together is this very polite way. Thank you for that!

So at the end we arrived at a point where it's a question of whether the propability in above or below 10^-50 (I haven't heart of that "magic" number, could someone (Lucinda?) please give a hint?).

What we don't know is:
What did Adam look like? How many bits did he consist of? What exactly was the situation on Earth right then?

I suppose Adam was a lot more simple than current organisms and would have no chance to survive in our world. But we can't solve that here.


So what's left is:

Evolution theory is the most possible explanation, as there is no other.

The first cell, Adam needed, *lots* of chance, maybe more than 10^50 Big-Bangs. (Do you feel as small as I do?)

>>So at the end we arrived at a point where it's a question of whether the propability in above or below 10^-50 (I haven't heart of that "magic" number, could someone (Lucinda?) please give a hint?).
<<

I seriously doubt it to be true... and if it is, I'm going to mailbomb my math-teacher for making me spend an entire year sweating over bordervalues. (Bordervalues you ask? Those numbers that are not zero, infinite or minus infinite, but are so close it's really impossible to write enough digits to describe. I think. I hope, else my upper secondary math was wasted and I'm going to have a hard time next year.. *gulp*)

On the contrary - this works in practice - just as much as $2+$2=$4

The point that scientists disagree with Wonko is over the size of the universe, or the numbers of universes. Wonko is postulating an infinite universe. In an infinite universe, anything that can happen must.

In a finite universe this is not true, and something which is very unlikely to happen can still be fairly unlikely to happen after a large number of trials. The current view of the majority of scientists is that this is a finite universe.

For the record I was simply stating maths - I have, as yet, taken no side in this. I was just helping you both out with a little arithmetical difficulty.

actually, Wonko, the first 'Adam' may have been very small. What you are effectively looking for is a 'self-catalysing chemical'. There are a number of candidates for what this chemical might be, but nobody knows of course.

Let us call this chemical Adamite. There are chemical processing continually at work in primeval earth, as today, under the influence of the sun and so forth. Some of these processes create Adamite, some destroy. For most chemicals a balance of creation and destruction is reached.

But adamite catalyses those processes which create it. So once one molecule has been made, another will be catalysed by it, and another, and another - soon the seas are swimming in Adamite.

So far, so boring for life - but of course, such catalysing is imperfect, and as a by-product of failed reactions, quite complex molecules can be quickly formed. Of these complex molecules, one which happens to be formed is Evite. Evite is self-catalysing, but only in the presence of Adamite. And so life continues.

Has a ring of dynamite to it.

If the universe has a distinct beginning and end, which is needed if its not infinite, what was before or after?

Blank? Empty? Nothing? Void?

I, for myself, am attracted by the idea of the universe itself being subject to Evolution. The law of physics are determined during the Big Bang according to the state the universe was in before the Big Bang. So the laws of physics are banging their way through Evolution, getting more complex and fine tuned untill they reach a level where Life on Earth is possible.

All we (the ancestors of Adam) have to do, is to pass our then vast knowledge, call it order or life or wisdom or law of physics, through the next Big Bang.

Or did that already happen? There it is: GOD.