that I like so therefore we're better than machines. You're not. You didn't paint that. You didn't make any Rembrandt stuff. You're just going to your job in your cubicle. A computer can do everything you can do. Can a computer do everything Rembrandt can do? Yeah it just has to do seven billion tries a day every day and some of those tries other human beings will say hey look at that one the computer randomly cranked out. That picture I don't know why but I love it. A computer trying to make art would do so much better than humans so quickly it would be ridiculous. Anyway wait for that.

I saw a fascinating discussion on evolution in which some evolution doubters were talking about why they doubted it. Now let me stop right here. One of the three doubters seemed to have a religious, biblical interpretation of things. It started by a god explanation. But the other two did not. So the other two doubters of Darwin were not doubting it in favor of a religious interpretation. They were just doubting it on mathematical, logical terms. And their argument was this. If you've got this long string of DNA and there's a sort of let's say a letter that represents every spot along it, you've got to have just the right organization of letters to create something that lives. Almost all of the combinations are unlivable. In other words any one change to what makes a person a person probably kills it. And they were saying that while it is possible you could have a random mutation there would amazingly take a living animal from the one that happens to work to one of the few and of trillions I think it was 10 to the 77th odds that you could get a random mutation that would actually work. It would be a living animal. So the argument was that the universe isn't old enough even with all 15 billion years. The universe isn't old enough for those odds to have given us the world we observe. And also that there's a sudden acceleration in new species during what is a very short period of history and that is also not explained.

Here's what's wrong with that. So as much as I think you're expecting me to say aha we have disproved evolution, there's something terribly wrong with the argument that says we don't have enough time in our universe for these odds to play out. Now first of all I just don't know if that's true. Do we not have enough time? I don't know if that's knowable. I don't believe that's knowable. But here's the problem. That would make sense if there were only one universe. Once if we are the only universe that has ever existed it's only happened once. There are no other dimensions. There are no other simulations. There are no other cycles in which the universe burst into existence, expanded to a point and then gravity shrunk it back in and it became a singularity again. How many times has this universe or a version of it been created from the Big Bang? Because our ability to measure time when we can go back to the Big Bang and then it stops. How many Big Bangs were there? Could there have been a trillion times a trillion times a trillion Big Bangs? There's nothing that makes that impossible, right?

So even if the odds of us existing are 10 to the 77th, the odds of this long line of markers on the DNA had to be exactly right for a creature to turn into another creature, how do we know how many times this universe has been created? Maybe all the other times it didn't work. Now the thing that people get wrong is that they forget that our ability to exist and to ask the question how did we get here would only happen if you happen to be the one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion that happened to work. So it would be entirely rational and believable that we would exist even though the odds look impossible. So I didn't buy the argument that there's not enough time because there could hav