Not to interrupt you two, Nick and yossarian, but I can't help jumping in:
yossarian said:
You call a binomial system intelligent? This is an extremely rudimentary AI to be sure, but it is still intelligence. This can be done to virtually anything with discrete outcomes.
Nick Soapdish said:
Yes, but it still requires an algorithm (and a computer), which is designed.
Indeed, it also requires a mother and father to have birthed the designer (and grandparents and great-grandparents, for that matter). Of course, it could be that the designer who created the universe was never born and has no parents, contrary to our common experience that all designers were born of parents. Similarly, it could be that the "algorithm" or laws of nature have no designer, contrary to our common experience that all algorithms have designers.
What we do know for sure is that algorithms can, once started, produce exquisitely complex phenomena all by themselves. There is also very good evidence that the universe is governed by laws......but no evidence for designers yet.
And of course, this is a separate issue from the issue of whether or not the laws of this universe--designed or not--are capable of producing complex behavior, including living things, without the intervention of the (supernatural) designers.....
Nick Soapdish said:
The first step in evolution is to have self-replicating protein structures that lead to RNA. Otherwise, there can be no small steps of progression. Do you understand the complexity of the function of self-replication (e.g. the watch is much simpler)? You say randomness will eventually reach this outcome, however, of the probability is low enough it can be regarded as impossible (unless you have a near-infinite amount of time).
This is a bold claim, especially considering the wealth of interdisciplinary work on this subject in the scientific literature, including geology, chemistry, biology, and physics.
Of course, while the particular configurations of molecules is not deterministic, constant environmental forces (such as electromagnetic fields or electrostriction) favor certain subsets of configuration space. Furthermore, in far-from-equilibrium systems (e.g. external source of energy flowing through the system, such as light from the sun or heat from geothermal vents) "improbable" configurations become more frequent.
But I invite you, Nick, to cite some examples from the peer-reviewed literature which support your assertion that the probability of self-replicating molecules arising from natural laws is virtually zero.
Note that this is a distinct claim from: 'self-replicating molecules arise from pure random chance'. No one says that happens, any more than the Grand Canyon or volcanoes or the northern lights happen from 'pure random chance'. Electrons, protons, and neutrons bouncing around randomly won't produce these things, it's true. Instead, these phenomena result from an interplay of random chance and the
non-random external forces being applied to non-equilibrium, non-thermally isolated systems.
Yes, it's true, thermally isolated systems that aren't too far from equilibrium won't do anything interesting by "random chance". Liqiud water confined to a cooler won't randomly form billions of unique, complex structures. But that same water, when unconfined in the turbulent atmosphere, and subject to all sorts of environmental conditions--fueled ultimately by energy expended by the Sun--will spontaneously self-organize into beautiful, complex structures that we call snowflakes. Most people take it for granted that the probability that any one of these structures would form from "pure random chance" is virtually zero; yet we also take it for granted that natural forces have been busy producing countless trillions upon endless trillions of
unique snowflakes, every day, all across the globe, for billions of years. And that's just on this one planet.
And yet, you say, categorically, that a certain set of amino acid configurations--a set which 'self-replicates' (though you don't specify with what degree of accuracy)--is impossible without a miracle. Show me this calculation. I would find it very impressive, especially considering the intense labor that has been devoted to far more modest calculations in the field of the molecular origins of life.