Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability (page 2)

Francois

Pom, I'm not sure how you can say that numbers can explain a lot after their limitations have just been displayed.

f

Hi Pom: I tried this argument once. My background is in engineering and math ... but when we try to cross-over with hard science math to chaotic biology, al la John Edwards style, then it gets really fuzzy ... here is the point:

Assume that a particular $Billion Dollar$ lottery number has the odds of 1 : 3 quadrillion ... these are called "astronomical odds" ... yet, some lucky smuck picks it ... then he gets paid the Billion Bucks ... the money is in the bank ... now ask him how he feels about the odds of winning the lottery. That is the kind of argument you will run into to ... evolution happened, so the odds become moot.

I talked with a professor of biology who countered the above argument by saying that evolution would be fine if there was only one lucky number to draw ... conceptually we could all accept that fact ... but evolution required that billions upon billions of numbers be drawn in the right sequence, the right combinations in the right timing, over a certain period in a certin place in order for even a single cell to emerge ... he noted that it is not a matter of astronomical odds, but a matter of astronomical improbability beyond the realm of reason ... he inspired me to examine these time requirements, and as a result, I became aware that there are some serious complications with evolution.

However, on the other side of the argument, evolution is an established "proven" fact as an "end-result" science. The term "theory" is simply the scientific way to express the "working premise," and yet allow for adjustments in the premise as more is understood ... this is true of electrical theory ... we all agree that electricity exist and functions for our benefit ... yet, our understanding is theoretical, that is based on a working premise.

Then again, if you read Michael Behe's arguments, (he is a chemical biologist) in his book Darwin's Black Box, you discover that he accepts evolution, but he too, as a scientist in a closely related field, has some serious concerns and he brings out excellent arguments to show that the working premise of evolution still has serious holes in it ...

My best advice, and the advice given to me, is to read both sides of the debate on www.TalkOrigins.com ... however, my experience with Talk Origins is that they tend to do battle with Fundamentalists-Creationists who are not very good at defending creation ... so the pro-evolution side comes across looking much stronger ... though to be fair, aside from Michael Behe, there is not a lot of balanced information coming from the critics of evolution for Talk Origins to work with ...

In dealing with evolution after I left the JWs, I fell back on my former Roman Catholic views, and decided that while I accept the theory of evolution and I accept the theory of God, I have to believe that God designed and set the process of evolution into motion. Accepting evolution does not require we accept or deny God ... evolution is merely a biological process, based on working scientific premise that is not only holding up over time, but is being refined and fortified such that it fact. Whaereas creation theory is pretty much where it was when it began ... and that is not even a theory, but a speculation of conjecture.

Edited by - Amazing on 12 October 2002 10:3:32

SpannerintheWorks

Pat,

The figure of 10 to the 60th power to 1 is the chances of DNA forming "by its self"; i.e., get all the bases and atoms, throw them up in the air, so to speak, and see if there is a DNA molecule formed spontaneously. Scientists (yes, real ones) worked out that this would have to be done 10 to the 60th power times to ensure a DNA molecule was formed.

As I said, it doesn't prove / disprove evolution, just that maybe DNA, at least, was "given a helping hand".

Spanner

JanH

The probability that life originated is exactly 1.

No biologist has ever proposed that a cell, or a DNA molecule, originated by chance. What happened was that a very basic replicator molecule originated. Since we don't know how this looked like, we can't calculate its probability. Once replicators existed, chance doesn't come into it any more. Natural selection is, as the name implies, the opposite of chance.

- Jan

Blogging at Secular Blasphemy

Amazing

Hi JanH: Quote correct. Some people call this "replecator cell" ... God. It just showed up one day by magic to solve a serious issue involving evolution ... just like some god showed up magically to create it all ... we don't know much about either one, but are willing to stake our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on either one or both.

Edited by - Amazing on 12 October 2002 10:7:43

BATHORY

Damb expat that is a great link you posted, thanks heaps. Just the same locig pattern i have i love it.

BTW Jan is right again, ( except for his first sentence IMO ), re read his post carefully.

Quity simply, inferences cannot be drawn if you are concerned for accuracy in this matter. The issue is bluffed by statistics, go a step back.

my humble 2 bobs worth

pomegranate

So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20) 300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10 390 , which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable.

The above is incorrect. The number is supposed to be 2 300.

The randon formation of this 300 amino acid long protein has been inaccurately portrayed by confusing the 20 proteins in life as the frational multiplier (1/20) to the number of aminos in this chain.

The probability of it's formation is in the random chance choosing of Left handed aminos over right handed aminos. Proteins are built with only left handed aminos. That's a one out of two chance for all 300.

So in the chain of three hundred aminos, there is a 1/2 chance of getting the left handed unit correct for each amino in the chain. So that would be 2x2x2x2x2x2...done 300 times or 2 300.

So, there is a big problem with this paper right from the start.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random

Well, where we are at now in this point of evolution, there IS NO biochemistry, because there is no LIFE (Bio) yet. We just have aminos flaoting in the soup. Biochemistry means LIFE chemistry, of which in the soup, there is NO LIFE YET, so there is no biochemistry yet.

This man also makes an interesting point, LAWS of CHEMISTRY. So, who wrote the LAWS for chemicals ie ionic and covalent bonds? Atoms digging the number 8 for the outer valence of electron orbits? Not only that, where did the chemicals come from? I have yet to hear of the evolutionists hypothesis for the atomic evolution, never mind bio evolution.

Where did all the periodic elements come from? Did they evolve too?

pomegranate

but when we try to cross-over with hard science math to chaotic biology

I believe that is wrong. Quantum mechanic scientists use probability laws all the time on the atom. Why? They found that electrons and other elementary particles behave in ways that seemed unpredictable in some respects. It was found that the statistical laws of probability could be used to average out these individual random motions. This brought order out of the confusion and made the behavior predictable on the average.

So, since BIOLOGY is made of of the same stuff that quantum scientsts had problems predicting, ATOMS, it does have equal value in predicting biological estimations.

There is NO science that the laws of probabilty are not used for. From life insurance policies, rocket orbits to traffic lights, probability law is used and relied on. Even in my biology classes.

Edited by - pomegranate on 12 October 2002 10:39:21

AlanF

Pomegranate, the futility of using probability arguments about something as complicated as evolution is easily illustrated by a counter-example:

Calculate the a priori probability that God could form out of "nothing".

Can't do it? Why not?

Does your inability to calculate this number indicate that your notion of God is flawed? Obviously, not to you. Why not?

Keep going along these lines and you'll see why it is only the ignorant who think that probability arguments have any validity on this topic.

AlanF

pomegranate

Interesting smoke screen.

Out of every single discipline of the sciences that freely uses probability mathematics to bring order by average out of the seemingly chaotic, only evolution is to be excused from the scrutinous eye of the Law of numbers?

And your reason why is because I believe God can create something out of nothing?

Whatever.

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

Share this