Evolving Genesis

Submitted by: buddy 12 years ago in Science
http://www.avoision.com/experiments/genesis/

If life arose spontaneously, random letters should eventually be able to create the very first line of The Bible.
There are 84 comments:
Male 92
I don`t see how complex organs such as the eye could have evolved. Evolution is just were unneeded or hindering genes die out because whoever they belong to is more likely to die, and the genes that help survival keep it`s holder alive longer. The eye needs multiple peices to work. How would the brain even know what to do with the simple eye once it is formed? By the time the brain does figure out how to work it, the gene for the eye would most likely be lost... It wasn`t helping any.
But I do believe in evolution AFTER the bases were laid down.
0
Reply
Male 1,033
someone should have told mason the pieces in his jar had to be moving
0
Reply
Female 104
I have a question, what happens if you`re watching it and it does make the line, would anyone believe you?
0
Reply
Female 104
Wow, this is weird.
0
Reply
Male 48
Fourthly, I should remind you that theory in scientific terms is the highest level of proof besides fact. The theory of general relativity is also "just a theory" but nobody doubts that.
0
Reply
Male 48
Mrcristo, I can refute the slow dna thing, because you`re picking things that have adapted as far as is possible. Bacteria have/will soon evolve immunitys to antibiotics, and they logically must have done this within the time antibiotics have existed, which is short.
Secondly, the last part of your argument is faulty logic. One can assume that all the laws of physics existed since the beggining of the universe, which would blow a whole in your argument. Scientists don`t say that the whole universe and all the laws that govern it were random processes. Some have just existed since the earliest possible time they could exist, because it`s how this universe works.
Thirdly, the only reason evolution hasn`t been proven is that humans haven`t been around long enough to see other species evolve, and we certainly haven`t been looking for this for any length of time.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
also...here`s something very interesting (though i can`t quite apply it to the debate at this point)...the entropy of the universe is constantly increase...and at the beginning of the universe, it is likely that the universe was extremely ordered....which can allow many more arguments to be included...

anyway...if theistic evolution is used, the whole argument of science vs. god evens out quite well....and i`m satisfied with that.

0
Reply
Male 3,060
mrcristo: an interesting read. thanks for posting your opinion. though some creatures may not have evolved, there is evidence supporting (though not proving) evolution. an example of this are minute changes in species of birds located in the galapagos islands (darwin`s studies)...
0
Reply
Male 281
If God does not exist then the universe is random and this would mean that scientific `laws` could not exist - a scientific law is one based on the repeatable observation of an event happening.

For instance the law of Gravity tells us that it is impossible for anything to float upwards (or fall upwards) without assistance (e.g. an engine).

Science states the world is NOT random, yet it was randomly made.

Either God does not exist, in which case science cannot exist, or God exists.

Take your pick.

0
Reply
Male 281
Of course the existence of scientific `laws`, not theories but proven `laws` such as the law of gravity, prove the existence of God.

How can their existence prove Gods existence?

Science postulates that the universe is RANDOM, that the world was created by a RANDOM process of events, that life was a RANDOM process of evolution.

Yet they support their arguments for these random events by using scientific `laws` as corroboration - they want it both ways. If the universe, and particularly earth, is due to RANDOM processes then how can there be regular and dependable events as a result?

Science says that certain scientific laws explain how random events, such as the big bang or the formation of amino acids, occured.
Therefore they are admitting that those laws already existed before the random events, that they caused the random events.

If God does not exist, the universe is random.

If the universe is random how can there be order in it?

0
Reply
Male 281
In 1979 J.A.Eddy and A.A.Boornazian reported that the sun had been shrinking for at least the past four hundred years, their evidence supports the conclusions of Helmholtz and Kelvin.

So science itself shows the Sun has been shining for about 100 million years and that DNA is extremely stable, both very damaging to the theory of evolution - a theory that, if you doubt it, gets you labelled a crackpot despite the fact it has NEVER been proved.

0
Reply
Male 281
After the late 1890`s, following the discovery of radioactivity, geologists began to date the earth - radioactivity suggested the earth was billions of years old (4.5 billion) so surely the sun must also be as old.

This meant that the suns energy source would have to allow the sun to shine constantly for around 4.5 billion years. They came up with the suns energy source - hydrogen fusion.

When two hydrogen atoms fuse together they form helium and they give off a subatomic particle called a nutrino.
The number of nutrinos detected is about four per month, this is one tenth of the number expected if the suns interior is fuelled by hydrogen (nuclear) fusion.

This means the suns energy isn`t coming from nuclear fusion.

0
Reply
Male 281
The measurements were based on precise physical measurements that needed few assumptions, and were even widely accepted by geologists.

Darwins suporters could not accept such a young sun, and by consequence young earth, as it negated Darwins theory of evolution by not giving enough time for the process of evolution.

Darwin himself admitted that Lord Kelvins data was a formidable (Darwins words) objection to natural selection.

Darwin also said:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

0
Reply
Male 281
We all know the Sun provides natures way of sustaining life, it provides us with light and warmth, and it enables photosynthesis.
So let`s, for the benefit of the evolutionist, say that despite the stability of DNA that evolution can still occur. For DNA to change requires living beings with DNA to be alive and to breed. So, if they could not have been doing this 600 million years ago then evolution is impossible. Around 1850 Herman Von Helmholtz, and later the equally respected Lord Kelvin, proposed that the energy for the suns brightness was caused by its very slow gravitational contraction (shrinkage) - in other words the sun was shrinking due to its own weight. George Abell calculated that since the suns present brightness is 4 times 10^33 ergs per second (about 10^41 ergs per year), its shrinkage can have kept it shining at its present rate for 100 million years. It is the suns present rate of brightness that supports life. Any less and life would be unsupportable.
0
Reply
Male 281
Science tells us that the Nautilus, a deep sea creature (not Captain Nemo`s submarine), existed 600 million years ago (the early Cambrian period).

This creature is the same today as those that became fossils 600 million years ago - their DNA did not change, they did not evolve.

The horseshoe crab has remained unchanged for, according to science, 500 million years - its DNA remains the same.

The king crab, according to science, has remained the same for 225 million years - the crustacean Triops cancriformis for 170 million years. In the Acapulco trench of Central America a live mollusk was found, though they were thought to have become extinct over 350 million years ago.
Five documented, scientifally accepted, proofs that DNA is extrememly stable. Five cases against evolution, yet no cases for evolution that show DNA is not stable nor that it is unstable enough to cause progressive changes. But this is just the start of the case.

0
Reply
Male 281
Fact - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.
Fact - there is no evidence proving evolution.
Fact - there is evidence against evolution.
This is where the text gets a little scientific, so bear with me. The crux of the evolutionary argument is that the DNA of living organisms is constantly changing to improve the species. This is the whole argument of evolution, that DNA changes from generation to generation to allow beings to adapt to their surroundings so that only the strongest survive. Evolution says that 600 million years ago man began as a fish, evolved into an ape and then a man (having started out as a chain of amino acids). Evolution can only be correct if DNA can be proved to be constantly changing. If it isn`t changing man could not have evolved, as our DNA determines our physical structure. Here then are some examples that prove DNA is not changing, that it is very stable and can not change fast enough to turn fish into apes and then men.
0
Reply
Male 254
Hmmm... Look in the history of the Catholic church it`s in their nature to be wrong. I personally beleive in Science more then God. However keep in mind that their are some thing inexplicable like the origens of the universe(or multiverse if you`re really into science).But honestly a bunch of random letters is not going to convince me, you could eventually get My dad gathers berrys from the hidden cave.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
^^^^^that`s theistic evolution.
0
Reply
Male 141
Scientists are trying to determine how things happen, rather than laying down and quitting saying that god must have done it and leave it at that. I`m not an atheist nor am I a christian, I beleive in a higher power but I also beleive his/her/its actions can be explained scientifically.

Why would god create laws of physics, gravity, etc if everything could just be explained as "god did it".

AyEcHiHuAhUa has the right idea, I don`t know why so many religious people feel science is killing god when to me and her it`s proving the existance more than ever.

0
Reply
Male 49
smigbaafm, you have a good point. Notice it never generates any letters or characters that aren`t in the line itself? Hardly random.

Sure, it was only trying to make a point, but sometimes any point becomes a little deeper once people have hashed out the intricacies of it, such as we have here. :)

0
Reply
Male 16
msieg007 is a fake, there is no way that that actually happened.
0
Reply
Male 648
ok, people, not that i dont appreciate people defending their beliefs, but this did all start from a stupid progarm that trys to recreate the first line of the bible randomly, which, no matter how complex that algarithm was, it was not random, eventually it would repeat and probably make that line over and over.
0
Reply
Female 91
I love it when people start spouting evolution because it just reaffirms my faith. No one not believing in a higher power can explain where that first matter that we all evolved from came from in the first place, even if all of those other "improbable odds" were overcome. To me evolution is the gift of scientific theory backing up that not only did a higher power orchestrate evolution but explains (theoretically) the manner in which He created everything as well. :-)
0
Reply
Male 3,060
^^^well, technically, the analogy he used was half right. however, the box wouldn`t be empty. it would have all of the watch parts in it. a very popular analogy in MANY of the books that i have read is "a random creation of the universe-blah, blah, blah- is about equal to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard, and by picking up pieces of scrap metal and fitting them together perfectly, makes a perfect Boeing 747".

as for the infinit universe theory, it carries about the same clout as Fundamentalist Christians saying "Hey! It`s in the Bible--It MUST be true!"...this is because the amount of matter in the cosmos is NOT infinite. See the big bang theory for an explanation as to why...so you have all of time to create life-- but you have limited resources....and once you combine some of those atoms, it is doubtful that they will seperate again (particularly with larger bodies)....if an asteroid collided with Earth, very little matter would be sent back

0
Reply
Male 72
Sorry, greenday15, but your "science" teacher is all wet. The reason you don`t get a watch by shaking a box is that watch parts are not naturally occuring elements that must interact in specific ways according to their natural properties.

Atoms, on the other hand, combine to form molecules according to specific patterns whether somebody`s there to make them do so or not. It`s a crappy analogy.

Incidentally, sounds in language work the same way: this sentence generator keeps producing strings of consonants, which no natural language would do without some vowels to separate them in order to form syllables. For a more accurate simulation, the programmer should put some limits on the strings of letters that correspond with the way language actually works in real life.

0
Reply
Female 91
Wow, this really brought the atheists out of the woodwork! *snicker*
0
Reply
Male 49
No wait I have one more thing. :)

Notice that in the "generator" this thing links to, the sequences are presented at a painstakingly slow result, relative to what the computer could actually be generating, if it were really trying to randomly sequence the bible. The obvious deeper point in this little flash is that time itself prevents us from ever doing anything an infinite number of times.

I like that analogy about the box, though. That`s why infinity doesn`t apply in reality, but only in the human mind and its machinations.

0
Reply
Male 49
You could even continue this to say that every piece of information would be repeated infinitely, which would require that infinitely complex pattern to be further repeated... By the time you do this a few times, the entire text of the bible is but a drop in the ocean of other undiscovered possibilities.

That is not to say that infinity truly works in the real universe, or anywhere else outside of mathematics and fantasy. There could be a finite end to life, the universe and everything. It could really be 42 units of "something."

Ok, now I`m done. :)

0
Reply
Male 1
for people like me who rnt geniuses on the subject, my science teacher put it this way.

If this theory was true, you could shake an empty box, and if you did it long enough, you would get a watch.

0
Reply
Male 49
Mr. Pliskin, for being 13-17 y/o, you`re not showing the full capacity of your modern education here.

Infinity is just that. In-freakin-finity. It doesn`t end. With that in mind, if you shoot out a random sequence of numbers, not only will the first few sentences of the bible occur, but the entire, perfectly sequenced DNA codes of every single human on Earth, in every possible combination, and all other possibilities, must also occur. And they will occur infinitely, not just once. All possible combinations of information would be constructed, but there would certainly be vast distances of gibberish in between.

0
Reply
Male 49
Regarding chance, it`s very interesting to note that only mathematicians and people who have done psychedelic drugs seem to be capable of truly understanding the near-infinite. That`s probably not a coincidence.
0
Reply
Female 20
well, i do think hobyandy`s arguments prove there is something extraordinary that made life possible (sort of despite the odds) but i wouldn`t call it god. there is still a lot to be discovered and comprehended so i think it`s possible that we dicover a sort of force that made life possible and that that force isn`t god but something "natural" (something like gravity you know) of course this is just my opninion and i don`t know anything about science or maths or...
0
Reply
Male 7
Just because its a quote, doesn`t make it true. Here`s a quote from me: "Im going to live until I am five thousand years old." Obviously not true. And on antother note, how can you say I made a fool of myself? I didn`t. Theres nothing illiterate about my sentence, I have an education, and if you pulled your head out of your a** for just one minute you just might realise how stupid that little "_quote_" of yours is.
0
Reply
Female 52
Wow, I am so glad I got dissed by an illiterate bumf*ck teenager like jg_pliskin. It`s a _quotation_, it`s also a mathematical fact. And when you feel the need to insult someone: 1) get an education before you make a fool of yourself, again, and 2)want to try finishing your insults bucky? I`d really like to learn exactly what kind of crock you think my quote was. But first, why don`t you go look it up, and then try using complete sentences. I have a dictionary here if you need some help.
0
Reply
Male 141
Also as mentioned above evolution discards unuseful mutations. Consider if the iteration kept letters that were "useful" (aka correct) a computer could rewrite the bible in a matter of days or weeks.
0
Reply
Female 992
Whoa!!!!!!! This is fricking awesome!!!!
0
Reply
Female 331
You all are obviously smarter than so many old schoolers. This is like the smartest thing I have seen discussed on i-am-bored.
0
Reply
Female 1,071
fake screen shot, but thanx for playing.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
crap...i told myself i wasn`t posting anything else...oh, well...i disagree with the last thing you posted, pseudonymous...however...while on the natural selection subject....you know that parade of apes in science textbooks demonstrating evolution? it isn`t true! it just explains a concept. in reality, evolution over great periods of time produces "dead-end" species...species that evolve uniquely, but aren`t competitive enough and die off...

and as for the assumtions of scientists that you brought up...well..you`d be surprised what a room full of einsteins can come up with- it`s more of a logically based estimation than an assumption. (we`ll just leave it with that).

0
Reply
Female 11
...^^good point....the results of natural selection tend to become the `targets` retrospectively. Our world and our species are the products of a process, so we assume that the process was *meant* to produce us. If we`d ended up as self-aware inorganic crystalline structures (unlikely example, but just to make a point) we`d assume the same.
0
Reply
Male 72
Thanks, hobyandy, for a very interesting thread. :-)
0
Reply
Female 11
And there`s a very good thread out there about the thermodynamics question.
0
Reply
Male 30
Evolution isn`t random. The mutations are random, but only the good mutations are passed on to the next generation. If it were random, then bad mutations would be passed on just as often as the good.
This animation is not "evolving genesis." In order to evolve genesis, it would need to select the random sets that were nearest to the target, and then recombine them and mutate them, as well as generate new random sets. This process would be repeated until the goal was reached, which would happen nearly every time you ran the program.
Of course, natural selection does not have a "target," but it is otherwise a very similar concept to what I have outlined here.
0
Reply
Female 11
Whose thorough research? The 50-billion-year estimate is based on assumptions made about the speed of evolutionary change that certainly aren`t infallible. Neither side of this debate should rely on assumptions.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
(last argument and i`m done---i`m the only one using this forum) The second law of thermodynamics states that EVERYTHING is in a constant state of decay. nothing is becoming more ordered. so how can evolution cause organisms to become more sophisticated? this goes against all principals of physics.

personally, i DO believe in evolution. however, i also associate God and a non-literal interpretation of the Bible with evolution (making it thiestic evolution). i`ve always loved this kind of controversy. i`ll probably come back here sooner or later and add more comments...but i`m done for now.

0
Reply
Male 3,060
....which if (by some amazing odds) joins correctly, forms deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)...which over BILLIONS of years evolves through various primitive stages until...finally...human comes into play. However- life only had a window of about 130 million years to form. (That’s not a lot of time when it’s put in perspective). The Earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old. However, until 3.98 billion years ago, Earth was too torrid to support life. Fossil records found in Greenland show that life was in existence 3.85 billion years ago, leaving just that small gap for life to come into creation.

...even evolutionist are stumped to this...because thorough research shows that for a complex organ to form from nothing (perticularly the eyeball)....would take about 50 billion years.

0
Reply
Male 3,060
first of all, ragdrazi, nebulae is plural (you did use it correctly the second time). secondly, this is my field of study. Every atom does have a pull...that`s true (as are the other facts you just said)...but look at it this way...let`s start with water, shall we? yes. fusion can creat the water. now...we need LOTS OF IT!!! and don`t think that it`s a common thing to have water (we are the only known planet that does). Now...we need a planet to form in a solar system with a star. check. but it can`t be too close!!!..oh...and it also can`t be too far away. Now...you pointed out your own "Earth rotation" theory. good for you. you are using the nebular theory- not the big bang theory. but of the nine planets, only three (it might be four...but i`m pretty sure it`s three) have a favorable rotation pattern about its axis. and once you have a planet formed (that`s the easy part)...you still need life...which MUST come from a pre-biotic soup of amino acids....
0
Reply
Male 490
Every atom in existence attracts every other atom. The chances of ending up with a nebulae (a cloud of atoms) is very high and can be simulated with mathematical models. The chances of those nebulae spinning due to angular momentum is high.
The chances of friction producing heat is high. The chances of stars being formed due to how hot the atoms get is high. The chances of water being formed due to fusion is high, the chances of everything life needs to survive being produced over the 14 trillion year period is incredibly high. Focusing only on mathematical chances does not take into account to forces enacting on the atoms that cause them to form nebulae. It`s a loosing argument made by crackpots.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
greenknight--in your lastpost, you ask if chance is 100% random. it gets FAR more in depth than that. for example...if life DID happen by means of purely of science, evolution, and randomness, life MUST have developed in a pre-biotic "soup"...the chances of this alone happening are astronomical...the you need water, heat, light, a rotational planet (you don`t need this---but it is a great conveniance), a balanced strong and weak nuclear force, fine-tuned gravity, and, finally, nutrients to help life survive. the chances of all of this coming together without "divine assisstance" is merely beyond human comprehension.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
bexter- this is an argument used by Creationists (fundamental Christians who support the theory that God created the earth and galaxy). the theory states that the probability of the world randomly being created is just too astronomical. the fact that everything worked out so well can`t be explained by anything other than by God.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
greenknight---i understand where you are coming from. i was confused when i first studied this, as well...theoretically- yes...it is possible. but it simply doesn`t happen. if you`d like- i can recommend some books on the subject: Powers of Ten, written by Eames and Morrison...and Creationism Vs. Evolutionism, edited by Bruno J. Leone. I know they can explain this more accuartely than I can.
0
Reply
Female 65
ok does anyone want to explain this thing to me?! in simple terms though! i suck at maths :P
0
Reply
Female 344
...I hate math so bad.

The little bar things on mine made a smiley face, though. :)

0
Reply
Male 20
Damn...I really DO hate maths.
0
Reply
Male 72
Also, does anyone really argue that chance is *totally* random anyway when it comes to the development of complex systems? The laws of physics do constrain the way particles behave, after all, which would seem to eliminate a lot of random mathematical possibilities all on its own (you would never have two protons sticking together, for example).
0
Reply
Male 72
Sorry, hobyandy, but I don`t see how that follows. Even according to your summary (which is pretty interesting), chance did have a chance, just a very very very very small one. But one is all that`s needed.
0
Reply
Male 152
i can play linus and lucy on the musical pie thing

A flat E flat A flat x2
Ab E flat F x2

hahahaaha thats how it goes though...

0
Reply
Male 3,060
even further...anything with a probability smaller than one out of 10^15 is dubbed impossible by probability experts.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
I *JUST* WROTE A THESIS ON THIS!!! What a coincidence!

To appreciate the size of 10^50, consider that if the big bang occurred 15 billion years ago, only 10^18 seconds have occurred in all of time. The number of atoms in the known universe is estimated to be only 10^80. Physicist Paul Davies has equated the odds of one chance in 10^60 as equal to the odds against hitting a one-inch target with the random, unaimed shot of a rifle bullet from a distance of 20 billion light years. One chance in 10^40,000 [the estimated odds of life forming by random processes] is far beyond mathematical probability….Chance had no chance to form life...


0
Reply
Male 34
Well, he`s right.
0
Reply
Male 1
crock of geese? crock of jam? crock of tunafish? crock of turtles? crock of monkey spittle? crock of money? I`m sure if I guess long enough I`ll come across it eventually...
0
Reply
Male 20
"When your timescale is infinity all probabilities go to one."

What a crock of....

0
Reply
Female 52
When your timescale is infinity all probabilities go to one.
0
Reply
Male 136
Where`s the bars?
0
Reply
Male 2,034
Holy poo you guys, I saw it. I don`t know how long i was waiting. I took a screen so you`d believe me.

0
Reply
Male 216
choose the musical pi one and select the F major scale. it sounds pretty neat.
0
Reply
Male 72
Dengarm has it right. If you waited long enough, yeah, the sentence would appear. But so what either way?
0
Reply
Female 1,004
quite interesting. it is kind of useless, but the guy makes a good point about appreciating the slim odds of us being here right now.
0
Reply
Male 25
i went to the musical pi and i let it go all the way, only 10000 digits though
0
Reply
Male 648
Buddy, i think it may be wise to not let religious stuff like this show up anymore, people tend to become snippy, sarcastic, and confused
0
Reply
Male 34
Exactly.
0
Reply
Male 6
Oh my gosh! An incredibly random event didn`t happen within 10 minuites. Jesus is my saviour!
0
Reply
Male 648
"regular god", eh slutz.....
and to point out the irony, you spelled "Amen" wrong
0
Reply
Female 2,035
Hmmmmmmm thats pretty interesting.
0
Reply
Male 7
The whole sentence came up for me. The possibility of you believing me is probably more than the chance of the sentence itself showing up. Have a little faith people....
0
Reply
Male 2
I didn`t know he just used letters from the sentence. It`s still a large number. The big bang is actually a pretty good theory, but I won`t get into that now.
0
Reply
Male 103
Makes me think how stupid a claim is like the big bang.
Elnheir...he only uses 15 characters; the letters from the sentence, a space and a period. So it actually isn`t that. But even with 15 it still gives a stupid number.
0
Reply
Male 9
my prayer: Dear God (the regular God) Please give me the strength to make a post with no typos. Aman
0
Reply
Male 578
Wow, that kinda makes you think.
0
Reply
Male 9
If you preay REAL HARD, you can get the letters to complete the sentence much faster.
0
Reply
Male 2
I thought this was neat. I decided to do the math behind his claim. It is possible, however very improbable. The odds of the sentance appearring is 1 in 1.4*10^78. That`s a 1 with 78 zeros behind it. I just thought someone might like to know. Also I feel like a geek, so I`ll just stop typing now.
0
Reply
Male 10,115
Click on the ? and the guy explains what he`s doing.
0
Reply
Male 1
It would be nice if the author of this site had something to back this claim up? I can`t even tell if he designed this site to prove that god must exist, or he believes in evolution.
0
Reply
Male 10,115
Link: Evolving Genesis [Rate Link] - If life arose spontaneously, random letters should eventually be able to create the very first line of The Bible.

I actually spent a while watching this to see how close it would get.

0
Reply