- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) was an English biologist, known as “Darwin's Bulldog” for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. He arguably did more than anyone else to advance the theory among scientists and the public alike.
Samuel Wilberforce was an experienced and skilful debater. As well as being a theologian, he was an able naturalist. He had also acquired a first in mathematics in his graduate days at Oxford. He was also a Fellow of the Royal Society, and had the unusual combination of being both Professor of Theology and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He was well versed in Darwin’s theory.
Huxley's famous 1860 debate with Wilberforce was a key moment in the wider acceptance of evolution, and in his own career. Huxley had been planning to leave Oxford on the previous day, but, after an encounter with Robert Chambers, the author of Vestiges, he changed his mind and decided to join the debate.
Before the debate took place, Wilberforce had written a 19,000-word review of the Origin, which was published in the Quarterly Review, July 1860. When Darwin read this review his comment was:
“It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties.”
Wilberforce began the debate and, after making several scientific points, concluded with Paley’s argument that a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, and similarly design in nature implies the existence of a Designer.
Huxley then arose and is said to have put forward his now well-known argument that six eternal monkeys or apes typing on six eternal typewriters with unlimited amounts of paper and ink could, given enough time, produce a Psalm, a Shakespearean sonnet, or even a whole book, purely by chance that is, by random striking of the keys.
In the course of his presentation Huxley pretended to find the 23rd Psalm among the reams of written gibberish produced by his six imaginary apes at their typewriters. He went on to make his point that, in the same way, molecular movement, given enough time and matter, could produce Bishop Wilberforce himself, purely by chance and without the work of any Designer or Creator.
First off, Huxley's doesn't make any argument that explains how the Apes and the Typwriters got there in the first place which equates to how the molecules got there. Besides an extraordinary extra amount of random probability and the lack of evidence or an explanation as to how something can come from nothing in the first place, let's talk about the odds of of Psalm 23 being typed out by these 6 monkeys banging the keys of 6 typewriters randomly and forget the much harder part of the equation as to how it all got there in order for such randomness to be enabled.
Here is one set of calculations.
Quote According to the Multiplication Rule of Probability (in simplified form)3 the chance of correctly typing the three designated letters ‘THE’ from possibilities is 1 in 50 x 50 x 50, which equals 125,000. At a rate of one strike per second, the average time taken to make 125,000 strikes is 34.72 hours. The chance of randomly typing the eight keys (seven letters and one space) in the right sequence for the two words THE LORD is 1 in 50 x 50 … eight times (i.e. 508). This is 1 chance in 39,062 billion. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year, so the average time taken in years to make 39,062 billion strikes at the rate of one strike per second would be 1,238,663.7 years.
The time taken on the average to correctly type the whole of verse 1 of the 23rd Psalm, which contains 42 letters, punctuation, and spaces, would be 5042 divided by 31,536,000 (seconds in a year), which is 7.2 x 1063 years.
And the time taken on the average to correctly type the whole of the 23rd Psalm, made up of 603 letters, verse numbers, punctuation, and spaces, would be 50603 divided by 31,536,000 which is 9.552 x 101016 years.4 If the letter ‘b’ stands for billion (109), this could be written as about one bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb years.
By comparison, the age of the Earth is supposedly 4.6 billion years, and the age of the universe is suppose to be almost 15 billion years.
When we apply probability theory to the correct arrangement of a DNA molecule, a similar situation is seen, as per the following quotation:
Quote ‘When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is ’meaningful’ in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability.’ Ambrose, E. The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, 1982, p. 135, as quoted in Bird, W.R. The Origin of Species Revisited, Philosophical Library, New York, 1989, Vol. 1, pp. 302–3.If you think random selection or selection without a designer/intelligence can produce such DNA, then I am sorry to inform you, but you have an illogical belief and considering that there is more to the universe than DNA, then you have an even much more illogical belief.
Good luck with that. But luck isn't going to cut it.
You are absolutely right about the absurdity of the idea that human DNA could possibly arise by trying random combinations of bases, starting from scratch with each new attempt.
Of course it didn't happen like that…
Stuart
T8,
Great posts, however I think you forgot some commas – When intelligence is not involved, what do you have left, Stu?Sorry Stu I couldn't resist, in fact you are intelligent, to a point. But you have become vain in your reasonings, contributing the glory of God's creation to pure chance. It surely demonstrates the truth in scripture, “22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”. I know you've heard it before and don't accept it, but if you cannot see the futility of clinging to your “religion's” impossible postulation it probably bares repeating.
My opinion – Wm
Can any of you explain how real scientists really think human DNA came to be like it is today?
Stuart
I would imagine real scientists are those who carry out experimentation in an effort to validate/invalidate certain claims. Others simply speculate about science.
Quote (seekingtruth @ May 28 2010,01:17) You'll have to define “real scientists”… oh right… only those who support your position, got it. 
Wm
Exactly. People who actually do science professionally. Who else?Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ May 26 2010,23:06) T8,
Great posts, however I think you forgot some commas – When intelligence is not involved, what do you have left, Stu?Sorry Stu I couldn't resist, in fact you are intelligent, to a point. But you have become vain in your reasonings, contributing the glory of God's creation to pure chance. It surely demonstrates the truth in scripture, “22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”. I know you've heard it before and don't accept it, but if you cannot see the futility of clinging to your “religion's” impossible postulation it probably bares repeating.
My opinion – Wm
Right on Wm!the Roo
Quote (kejonn @ May 28 2010,01:59) I would imagine real scientists are those who carry out experimentation in an effort to validate/invalidate certain claims. Others simply speculate about science.
And what do real scientists say about the source of the universe or Big Bang?Do they say God, something non-living, or nothing?
They seem to be silent on that subject, so real scientists it seems are not the experts when it comes to the origin.
They can only postulate and prove what happened once it was set in motion. And at that point, you have intelligence or you have designed processes which both are in the realm of the first option.
But even a house which is the result of design and processes, still begs the question (who made it) and when it comes to the biggest house of all, (the universe) they suddenly can say with confidence and blind faith that it wasn't designed or made.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 29 2010,05:12) Quote (seekingtruth @ May 26 2010,23:06) T8,
Great posts, however I think you forgot some commas – When intelligence is not involved, what do you have left, Stu?Sorry Stu I couldn't resist, in fact you are intelligent, to a point. But you have become vain in your reasonings, contributing the glory of God's creation to pure chance. It surely demonstrates the truth in scripture, “22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”. I know you've heard it before and don't accept it, but if you cannot see the futility of clinging to your “religion's” impossible postulation it probably bares repeating.
My opinion – Wm
Right on Wm!the Roo
What do you mean “right on”? It is vacuous nonsense you are encouraging here.You wouldn't be Australian by any chance?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 29 2010,10:49) Quote (kejonn @ May 28 2010,01:59) I would imagine real scientists are those who carry out experimentation in an effort to validate/invalidate certain claims. Others simply speculate about science.
And what do real scientists say about the source of the universe or Big Bang?Do they say God, something non-living, or nothing?
They seem to be silent on that subject, so real scientists it seems are not the experts when it comes to the origin.
They can only postulate and prove what happened once it was set in motion. And at that point, you have intelligence or you have designed processes which both are in the realm of the first option.
But even a house which is the result of design and processes, still begs the question (who made it) and when it comes to the biggest house of all, (the universe) they suddenly can say with confidence and blind faith that it wasn't designed or made.
When we play your LP, t8, at the end of side one you hear “play side two for the explanation” and on side two at the end you hear “play side one for the explanation”.And the two sides have exactly the same content apart from that.
Stuart
In other words, no answer, no clue, so dodge the question and don't partake of the debate.
As long as you dodge the beginning, then all the other stuff you talk about has no foundation.
No foundation means that you have no context and all that you build falls down because nothing holds it up.
Try building a house without a foundation. Good luck.
You will look foolish trying, hence why it says that the fool says there is no God. He denies the foundation and therefore everything else hinges on foolishness.Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,21:58) In other words, no answer, no clue, so dodge the question and don't partake of the debate. As long as you dodge the beginning, then all the other stuff you talk about has no foundation.
No foundation means that you have no context and all that you build falls down because nothing holds it up.
Try building a house without a foundation. Good luck.
You will look foolish trying, hence why it says that the fool says there is no God. He denies the foundation and therefore everything else hinges on foolishness.
What debate?Stuart
Apes Have Midlife Crises, Too
Stu, according to National Geographic, apes can have a midlife crises just like humans.
Apes like you have much in common with us humans than perhaps many realise. Not sure if daffodils get it, but they too share quite a bit of DNA code like us too. Not as much of course.I didn't read this thread, but the experiment was tried with monkeys once for a while. What they got was several pages of the capital letter “S”
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
….Although it has been proposed that you could come up with Shakespeare with randomness, monkeys aren't random. And they seem to like the letter “s”
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2012,12:57) according to National Geographic, apes can have a midlife crises just like humans.
Maybe that is because of common design.Stuart
Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2012,13:45) I didn't read this thread, but the experiment was tried with monkeys once for a while. What they got was several pages of the capital letter “S” SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
….Although it has been proposed that you could come up with Shakespeare with randomness, monkeys aren't random. And they seem to like the letter “s”
That scientifically proves that all monkeys are left handed.
Tim
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2012,12:57) Apes Have Midlife Crises, Too
Stu, according to National Geographic, apes can have a midlife crises just like humans.
Apes like you have much in common with us humans than perhaps many realise. Not sure if daffodils get it, but they too share quite a bit of DNA code like us too. Not as much of course.
An If you were an old Car id have trouble getting spare Parts for you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
