Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: "Ben Standeven" <berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Mar 2006 14:44:36 -0800
johnfromberkeley@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, I am not a biologist, or a scientist of any type, but I do trust
the integrity of the scientific community at large with regards to
evolution.
My friend, however, believes in "intelligent" design. He believes there
is anomalous math with regards to the number of years required for
species to evolve to their current state of development. I am looking
for opinions on the following assertion:
"to get from a one-celled organism to a human with at least 1 trillion
cells there would have to be many changes. if you limit necessary
mutations to 1000 and half are beneficial the odds against getting them
in the right order is 21000 in decimal form about 10301 this is far
beyond the capacity of the universe to generate during its lifetime so
far. the universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion [9 more
quadrillions] old."
The math here is anomalous, all right. The chance of a random sequence
of
1000 mutations occurring in a pre-specified order is 1 in 1000!, which
is rather
more than 10^301. On the other hand, the chance of them happening in
_some_ order (probably a more relevant measure) would be 1.
Thanks.
.
- References:
- How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: johnfromberkeley
- How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Prev by Date: Re: Opinion Poll: Water and Life?
- Next by Date: Re: Did Hawking actually say this?
- Previous by thread: Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Next by thread: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
