Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News4 mins ago
Hoyle's Junkyard, Kepler's Wife, & Monkeys
Mention Fred Hoyle's 'Chances of a tornado in a junkyard producing a 747' analogy, to the creation of the universe, the knee-jerk reaction (at least on AB in R&S) is to quote 'Hoyle's Fallacy', which is based largely on semantics. As an artist (with an interest in science) I stick with Fred, and recently it appears more scientists begin to concur.
In the book 'Leviathan and the Air-Pump' (Princeton University Press) I discover this quotation from [one of my heroes] Johannes Kepler in his 'Stella nova' (1606) about his redoubtable wife;
'Yesterday, when I had grown tired of writing and my mind was full of dust motes from thinking about atoms, she called me to dinner and served me a salad. Whereupon I said to her, if one were to throw into the air the pewter plates, lettuce leaves, grains of salt, drops of oil, vinegar and water and the glorious eggs, and all these things were to remain there for eternity, then would one day this salad just fall together by chance? My beauty replied "But not in this presentation, nor in this order". '
Does the Hoyle/Mrs Kepler argument put paid to the 'Infinite monkey theorem' ?
In the book 'Leviathan and the Air-Pump' (Princeton University Press) I discover this quotation from [one of my heroes] Johannes Kepler in his 'Stella nova' (1606) about his redoubtable wife;
'Yesterday, when I had grown tired of writing and my mind was full of dust motes from thinking about atoms, she called me to dinner and served me a salad. Whereupon I said to her, if one were to throw into the air the pewter plates, lettuce leaves, grains of salt, drops of oil, vinegar and water and the glorious eggs, and all these things were to remain there for eternity, then would one day this salad just fall together by chance? My beauty replied "But not in this presentation, nor in this order". '
Does the Hoyle/Mrs Kepler argument put paid to the 'Infinite monkey theorem' ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If a Hoyle can happen and a junkyard can happen (as they obviously did) then what is so peculiar about evolution happening . . . apart from which any probability of the other things happening would not have been possible?
Evolution is the means and process by which the complexity of things such as life, consciousness, intelligence and creativity arise and become manifest. To suggest that the products of evolution preceded evolution is to ignore the means and process by which such complexity arose and was made possible in the first place.
Evolution is the means and process by which the complexity of things such as life, consciousness, intelligence and creativity arise and become manifest. To suggest that the products of evolution preceded evolution is to ignore the means and process by which such complexity arose and was made possible in the first place.
mib.We are not talking about evolution here; the original context of Hoyle's argument was against abiogenesis, not evolution. 'But Hoyle is right in requiring an explanation of where all the enzymes or proteins that exist "across the whole of biology" came from, given that the probability of even one small enzyme/protein of 100 amino acids arranged in a necessarily specific sequence would be 20100 = ~10130, when there are ~1080 protons in the entire universe:
"... for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10130 alternative choices. ... The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero." (Brooks, "Origins of Life," 1985, pp.84-85).
"... for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10130 alternative choices. ... The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero." (Brooks, "Origins of Life," 1985, pp.84-85).
The fallacy in the calculation is making the assumption that we go from nothing to complex in one step.
It makes the assumption that the conformation of the protein was ever thus, and that it is irreducibly complex - that a simpler form of it could not have existed first.
It also assumes that the conformation of proteins is that specific that it would fail if another amino acid or more were substituted. They are not necessarily that specific.
So this calculation of Freds rests on 2 false premises - that there was a single step from completely random to structured complexity; and that the structures have to be that specific...
It is irreducible complexity all over again.
It makes the assumption that the conformation of the protein was ever thus, and that it is irreducibly complex - that a simpler form of it could not have existed first.
It also assumes that the conformation of proteins is that specific that it would fail if another amino acid or more were substituted. They are not necessarily that specific.
So this calculation of Freds rests on 2 false premises - that there was a single step from completely random to structured complexity; and that the structures have to be that specific...
It is irreducible complexity all over again.
I was going to make that same point LG but you beat me to it. Another one I would add is that the calculation seems to assume that amino acids are like wheels on a slot machine. But they do interact somehow, and maybe that interaction makes particular structures in protein more likely, or more favourable.
It's not irreducible complexity. Basic amino acids consist of NH2 (sorry no subscript), CH2 and COOH radicals. The latter two are very stable and covalently bonded from the respective carbon atom (for a quantum explanation of covalency - see Walter Heitler and Fritz London, 1927). These are the stable configurations that Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms tend to get into and as I tried to explain before, there is a tendency in nature toward stability. The only part of it that really needs explanation is the NH3 radical. This is where an aquatic, volcanic source comes in handy. Evidence is plentiful that there was an abundance of these, even more so than now (eg Iceland). Amino acid formation was not a long shot. Some basic AAs have even been discovered in deep space. I question Brooks' calculations.
Apologies Khandro, in attempting to remove complexity I've inadvertenty added a little. The amine radical is indeed NH2.
In summary, the 'blind watchmaker' analogy tempts the mathematician into making unnecessary calculations. The atoms in question have chemical characteristics pre-determined by their physical characteristics. They will tend to group together in certain ways. So to build up a probability profile based on randomness of atom A coming to rest beside atom B, then coming to rest beside atom C is entirely wrong. For example if you had just C, H and 2 Os in a sealed box and shook the box, maybe you would get COOH or maybe you would get COH with a spare O, but it doesn't matter, because in a short time it will become COOH all on its own. So the probability of that part of the event is 1. Just leave a glass of wine or beer for a few days and you will see.
The formation of amino acids, given an abundance of the necessary building blocks, water in its liquid state, various heat sources and maybe the odd lightning strike - was inevitable.
In summary, the 'blind watchmaker' analogy tempts the mathematician into making unnecessary calculations. The atoms in question have chemical characteristics pre-determined by their physical characteristics. They will tend to group together in certain ways. So to build up a probability profile based on randomness of atom A coming to rest beside atom B, then coming to rest beside atom C is entirely wrong. For example if you had just C, H and 2 Os in a sealed box and shook the box, maybe you would get COOH or maybe you would get COH with a spare O, but it doesn't matter, because in a short time it will become COOH all on its own. So the probability of that part of the event is 1. Just leave a glass of wine or beer for a few days and you will see.
The formation of amino acids, given an abundance of the necessary building blocks, water in its liquid state, various heat sources and maybe the odd lightning strike - was inevitable.
//
In a recent experiment "The monkeys produced five pages of text, mainly composed of the letter S, but failed to type anything close to a word of English, broke the computer and used the keyboard as a lavatory."
//
Which goes to prove a long held theory of mine that if you gave enough monkeys enough time with a typewriter they'd eventually produce 5 pages of text, mainly composed of the letter S.
In a recent experiment "The monkeys produced five pages of text, mainly composed of the letter S, but failed to type anything close to a word of English, broke the computer and used the keyboard as a lavatory."
//
Which goes to prove a long held theory of mine that if you gave enough monkeys enough time with a typewriter they'd eventually produce 5 pages of text, mainly composed of the letter S.
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
Body & Soul13 mins ago
Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.