The Probability of Evolution
There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics. (Mark Twain)
I’m reminded of a story about newspaper reporting in the old Soviet Union (I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it illustrates a point well). A car race between the United States and the Soviets ended with the United States car in first, and the Soviet car second (you should also know only two cars were in this race). But the reporting in the Soviet Union stated the Soviet car came in second, while the United States car came in second to last. Perfectly true, and yet perfectly misleading.
You must be careful with statistics. For example, it’s possible the air in your room right now could spontaneously all move in the same direction at once, piling up in the other side of the room leaving you gasping for air. Possible, yes. But when calculated, the probability is so small as to be reasonably rounded off to zero (it’s not going to happen, so breathe easy).
A similar argument against evolution applies to the probability of events occurring which result in new species (mutations, natural selection and spontaneous generation). That probability is zero (when rounded off reasonably). It’s mathematically possible, but the expectation is so low we logically round it down to zero and state the event is never going to occur.
So the evolutionist has a problem — the odds of evolution occurring are zero. One tactic evolutionists attempt to show the theory isn’t ridiculous (i.e. mathematically impossible) is showing highly improbable events happen all the time — unfortunately, it’s usually through a misapplication of statistics. You see, simple logic and common sense tell you if (as they claim) improbable events happen frequently one of two situations is most likely true.
- The event really isn’t that improbable. Thus, our mathematical calculation of statistical odds is incorrect — an error in math has been made.
- Statistics have been misused or misunderstood, similar to our car race example. The facts and math are correct, but the application of that knowledge is wrong.
Common sense explains the argument is already wrong, but we can continue with a specific example and explain exactly why it’s wrong. One of the methods the evolutionist uses draws false conclusions from a deck of cards — a mistake even a college professor can make; consider the following discussion from a professor of mathematics at Temple university.
So if, after the fact, we observe the particular evolutionary path actually taken and then calculate the a priori probability of its being taken, we will get the minuscule probability that creationists mistakenly attach to the process as a whole. Here’s another example. We have a deck of cards before us. There are almost 10 to the 68th power – a one with 68 zeroes after it – orderings of the 52 cards in the deck. Any of the 52 cards might be first, any of the remaining 51 second, any of the remaining 50 third, and so on. This is a humongous number, but it’s not hard to devise even everyday situations that give rise to much larger numbers.
Now if we shuffle this deck of cards for a long time and then examine the particular ordering of the cards that happens to result, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 68th power. This certainly qualifies as minuscule. Still, we would not be justified in concluding that the shuffles could not have possibly resulted in this particular ordering because its a priori probability is so very tiny. Some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this one did. (What’s wrong with Creationist Probability — Mathematics Professor John Allen Paulos of Temple University)
Mr. Paulos gets his math right, but the statistics wrong. The card example comes up repeatedly in attempts to show evolution isn’t mathematically impossible, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a professor of math make the mistake.
His problem lies in the card example. Suppose I have a deck of cards. He is correct in the 1068 combinations of cards (the probability of any 1 combination occurring). But he makes the mistake of applying statistics. Actually, by shuffling and dealing the cards the probability is 1 — it’s a certainty one sequence will occur (one of the 1068 possibilities). Mr. Paulos does understand this, as he says “Some ordering had to result from the shuffling”.
The one in 1068 is the probability of calling out each card — in order — as you turn them up. That’s the correct analogy between cards and evolution. It’s a certainty you will get a sequence. But is it the exact sequence you want? Correct math, wrong application. The probability is 1 you will get a sequence, but much less likely you could correctly call out each card as it’s dealt (This is also sometimes illustrated as a group of monkeys randomly typing out the works of Shakespeare).
The card example illustrates a common mistake in the application of statistics, and statistical mistakes can be difficult to uncover. As already noted, if such improbable events really do happen commonly, they’re not so improbable, are they (by definition)? But since the odds calculation is correct (it’s not an error in math), it must be the application of knowledge.
Let’s turn to Physicist Richard Feynman to explain the faulty reasoning and the professor’s error immediately becomes obvious. For those who might not know, Feynman was a Nobel-prize winning physicist involved in The Manhattan Project, and on the panel investigating the space shuttle Challenger disaster. But perhaps best known for a series of undergraduate lectures captured in the famous “Feynman lectures on Physics”, Feynman had the ability to illustrate complex problems simply.
What came to Feynman by “common sense” were often brilliant twists that perfectly captured the essence of his point. Once, during a public lecture, he was trying to explain why one must not verify an idea using the same data that suggested the idea in the first place. Seeming to wander off the subject, Feynman began talking about license plates. “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” A point even many scientists fail to grasp was made clear through Feynman’s remarkable “common sense”. (“The Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume I” , Feynman, Leighton, Sands page xi-xii)
Feynman makes Professor Paulos’ mistake with the cards clear — it’s not an error in math, it’s an error in science. The issue with cards relating to evolution isn’t that any given sequence is wildly improbable, yet a sequence comes up — when dealing cards it’s a statistical certainty a sequence will occur (probability one). The correct example relating to evolution would be to predict each card as it is dealt (probability zero).
Physicist Feynman illustrates the difficulty when applying mathematical statistics to science. It’s quite easy to make a mistake, even for a professor of mathematics; Feynman illustrates the error through his license plate example. Don’t be misled by lengthly, complicated examples — anyone truly understanding a subject should be able to explain it simply, as Feynman did. Sometimes (though certainly not always), the complicated explanation simply provides a way to mask the uncertainty involved (In Physics we called that “hand-waving” — the idea being to distract from a lack of substance).
Feynman was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin 1/2 particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. He gauged his audience perfectly and said “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it”. But a few days later he returned and said “You know, I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don’t understand it”. (“The Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume I” , Feynman, Leighton, Sands page xii)
Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.
Copyright © Darrin Yeager 1998-2010
Comments
My question is not intended
My question is not intended to be inflammatory in any way. I’m genuinely interested in your response.
Are we still not applying the statistical model appropriately? As I read the examples, the appropriate comparison to me is: “The probability of predicting the sequence of evolution rounds to zero, but the propability of an evolutionary sequence taking place is 1.”
Why would this statment be incorrect?
the propability of an
Short answer, you’ve assumed what you’re trying to prove (we’re here, therefore evolution happened).
The fact a sequence appears (probability 1) doesn’t tell you how that sequence appeared. Did you deal it? Did your friend? Did you start and someone else finish?
That’s the question — we’re here (probability 1), but how?
The card example is meant to refute those who say wildly improbable things occur all the time (Feynman’s example is perfect) — they don’t (or they’re not improbable). For anyone who does think so, try and call out each card and see how far you get.
OK, Darrin. So what's your
OK, Darrin. So what’s your point ?
Forgive me, but I’m not familiar with this website. I do not wish to appear radical or overly argumentative but, if your analysis is an effort to prove there is a God who created human life … sorry, but in my opinion (as a scientist) your theory doesn’t hold water.
Don’t misunderstand me, I believe there is a God who used evolution to create human life. I just don’t believe that, all of a sudden, there were people (let’s call them Adam and Eve).
If scientific analysis suggests that evolution can occur, no matter how remote that possibility (1:10^68 or even 1:10^6800) then it can happen and the probability, no matter how small, is definitely not zero. If it hadn’t happened on earth, why not on one of the G’Zillion other celestial bodies out there ?
You can scientifically analyze it until you’re blue in the face and you won’t come up with a probability that a God created Man - Not even 1:10^680000000. Just because the probability of something happening is very low, or false, it doesn’t make something with even lower probability true.
So if evolution didn’t happen and God didn’t create us, how come we’re here ?
Don't misunderstand me, I
Do you believe in the Bible? Or just some random god? If it’s any god, fine, but if you believe the Bible, then you’ve got a problem as it says God created Adam and Eve.
If scientific analysis suggests that evolution can occur, no matter how remote that possibility (1:10^68 or even 1:10^6800) then it can happen and the probability, no matter how small, is definitely not zero.
Leaving for the moment the idea that evolution even can occur (where is the experimental evidence showing non-life comes alive, for example), at some point the probability is so small you can safely round it to zero and say it’s not going to happen. Basic statistics. You can argue where that cutoff is, but no mathematician would deny the principle. It’s possible to win the lotto every week for a year, but it’s not going to happen as the odds are too small - it’s not probable.
If memory serves, only 10^80 atoms exist in the universe. Suppose I marked one, and asked you to pick it. It’s possible, but it’s not going to happen. Don’t confuse possibility with probability. Consider 15 billion years in seconds is 4.7^17 (if my math is correct) - if you got 1,000 choices/second, the universe isn’t old enough for you to find the atom I picked. In other words, it’s possible, but it’s not going to happen.
So if evolution didn’t happen and God didn’t create us, how come we’re here ?
That’s for you to answer as the Bible says God did create us. The only other option is UFO’s, but then you’re back to the question of where the ET’s came from. It’s either evolution or God - your choice. If evolution isn’t true, a god created everything.
You're making a critical
You’re making a critical mistake in this example. In much the same way that dealing out a deck of cards in a particular sequence and then working the probability of that specific sequence makes the mistake of assuming that that particular hand HAD to happen, you’re making the mistake of assuming that life had to play out in the way that it has.
You are suggesting that only one specific “hand” would allow life to begin. That is a mistake. There are countless examples of the many different ways life could have worked. Different genetic codes, differently “handed” proteins, use of different amino acids, and so on.
The living world that you see around you is, to use the analogy, the sequence of 52 cards dealt sequentially, or else a result of it. In assuming that the probability against it occurring is 52 factorial, you are assuming that that SPECIFIC outcome was required, that no other outcome would have worked.
Given your theistic underpinnings this is not surprising. But it is not science. The logical conclusion to be drawn from this analogy is that, if the history of Earth was replayed from the beginning but with randomized starting parameters, things would have played out very differently. The astronomically high probability is against life ending up as we see it now again, not against it happening at all. It is true that a possible outcome of such a randomized Earth is no life, but it is far from the only outcome.
The astronomically high
First, I’m glad we agree on the error made with the cards.
But how can you know any other sequence would work? Where is the experimental data for that hypothesis? We’ll likely agree not all sequences work, so the number of working sequences lies between 1 and 52 factorial; without any experimental evidence, how are you to determine what works and what doesn’t? The evidence says one for sure — you’re guessing (without any experimental evidence) to say more than one works.
That’s the only real evidence we have. Any guess regarding what might have happened isn’t science, unless you can recreate it experimentally.
You’re assuming any other sequence would have worked — something you’ve assumed without any experimental evidence to back it up, thus it’s not science. It’s something you’ve taken on faith, and given the lack of evidence for any other life elsewhere in the cosmos, it’s a big leap of faith.
Darrin: Yes, I believe in
Darrin: Yes, I believe in the Bible - I have a copy. I also believe in Isaac Asimov’s Chronology of the World - because I have a copy of that publication, also. Both are history books with a degree of hypothesis thrown in. Just because I believe in a book doesn’t mean I believe everything that is written in that book.
For the record, my God is not just “any god” or “just some random god”. It (I have a problem calling it “He”) is simply some kind of energy form, life or intelligence that caused all this to happen (and evolve). If there ever was an Adam and an Eve then they were created by God, just as you and I were. However, they did not suddenly appear with no other form of human life around them.
I’m sorry but I simply don’t buy this “creation of life” idea. My God is a form of life and It created life as we know it. But It didn’t create life out of nothing. Life created life as we know it. There was no beginning and there will be no end. However, what existed before life as we know it (and what will exist after) is something way beyond the comprehension of mankind.
For some strange reason you seem stuck on the idea that low probability means something “is not going to happen”. Low probability is low probability, that’s all. We can’t “safely round it to zero” just because it’s convenient to do so. And again, if the probability of evolution is very small (and it isn’t, because there is scientific evidence of evolution) then what is the probability of everything stated in the Bible being true? Now you have something that unequivocally cannot be true.
I find it amazing that your only alternative to the theory that God created us is UFO’s or ET’s. Anyone who refutes the concept of evolution (with or without the Hand of God) has blinkers on. Just because the Bible says God created man doesn’t make that fact, merely a hypothesis. In fact, the Bible is so full of contradictions that it is difficult to believe anything written in it. The Bible says that God created the beasts of the earth and then made man (Genesis I). The Bible also states that God created man and then the beasts (Genesis II).
Incidentally, you are critical of Nomad when you make the comment: “something you’ve assumed without any experimental evidence to back it up, thus it’s not science. It’s something you’ve taken on faith, and given the lack of evidence …… , it’s a big leap of faith”. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
My God is a form of life and
Genesis 1:1 (in Hebrew) — God created out of nothing. That’s what the Bible says. You don’t have to accept it, of course, and it appears by your comments you don’t believe what the Bible says, so not much more to say about that.
Yes, we can, and the sciences do it all the time. It’s possible for you to win the lotto every day for a year — the probability isn’t zero — but it’s not going to happen. It’s effectively zero. Math isn’t science, and science isn’t math. You’re correct mathematically, but not scientifically.
The Scientific method is based on repeatable, verifiable, experimental evidence. So where is the experimental evidence for the following evolutionary ideas?
If you don’t have repeatable, experimental evidence for those (and much more), it’s not science by definition.
It’s not really my theory, but I’ve only heard three possibilities ever mentioned in all the years of discussing this subject with a wide variety of people: religious, atheists, new agers, and philosophers.
Nobody has ever said anything that doesn’t boil down to one of the first two. Either some eternal being created the cosmos, or it came about by itself, purely by accident. If you’ve got another option not listed which doesn’t involve those, please let us know.
A whole section of the web site is dedicated to those claims. It’s called “The Skeptic Series”.
Just pointing out what they’re claiming Christians do with God is exactly what they’ve done regarding evolution — accepted non-scientific ideas on faith alone without any scientific evidence (repeatable, experimental evidence) to back it up. Glad you noticed the point.
Darrin: I read with interest
Darrin:
I read with interest your piece on the application of probability to evolution, or perhaps the misuse of it. I’m a proponent of evolution, and often try to ‘catch’ proponents of intelligent design on the same mistake you point out. Feynman’s license plate story is a classic one; this fallacy is made all the time. Another analogy is this:
You’re walking down the the streets of New York and you round the corner and right in front of you, coming toward you, is a friend you haven’t seen in 10 years (she also is not a resident of the city). The two of you go on and laugh at the wild probability of the meeting.
This is the same mistake as the story of the license plate. The only way you can speak of the remoteness of the probability of this meeting would be if you had thought of, or had written down, the idea of meeting that friend in advance(!). This is also true of the license plate; you’d need to have written down (or thought of ) the exact plate before you stepped into the car. And the same for your card example, one would have had to written down the order of the cards in advance. So you’re well correct.
So, allow me to bring you into my thinking as to where I’m going with this. Proponents of intelligent design (I don’t know if you are one or not) use the idea of the fine-tuned universe. I’ll assume you’re aware of this argument that is used to support the explanation of a ‘designer’. If not, it’s easy to find. Let’s assume this notion is true for our sake of argument. This idea falls into the same trap as the license plate or the cards or the meeting in NY; they’re trying to verify an idea by using data that’s suggesting the idea in the first place. I.e., if this is one of very few universes, perhaps the only one, then they are making a statement about the improbable event happening from the vantage point of one of the few universes (or only universe) that could generate life that could ask the question about the improbable universe. Same fallacy. Same mistake. The fact that the universe is here, the fact that we met our long lost friend in New York, the fact that we parked next to license plate number ARW357, is trivia.
So, their claim to a designer is, in effect, shredded before they can even get to the argument that it’s too improbable. It isn’t too improbable. That claim can’t be made. It is a dead-in-the-water argument. It can’t even get to first base.
Cheers, my friend
interesting
“So, their claim to a designer is, in effect, shredded before they can even get to the argument that it’s too improbable. It isn’t too improbable.” What this discussion needs is a little bit of historic perspective. The question of how the universe got here is a question of history not a question of probability. For example when I was a teen I foolishly allowed an exchange student from brazil drive my car. Due to her inexperience we fishtailed and hit, on a two mile stretch of road, the only rotten telephone pole. My odds of hitting a telephone pole on a two mile stretch of road is statistically about 1 to 330. my chance of hitting a specific telephone pole is 1 in 21,120 or something close to that. When you try then to determine statistically the best method of HOW I hit the pole the the odds of ANY two combinations become astronomically huge. The best method of determining what ACTUALLY happen at my accident is to read the official report (which is not empirical by the way but a question of TRUSTING THE SOURCE) Scientifically using statistics to prove what did or did not happen is not helpful, especially concerning history. Statistically the titanic shouldn’t have sank. Kennedy shouldn’t have been shot like he was. How we got here cannot be determined by science (it’s not repeatable nor demonstrable) neither is it statistically provable. Scientist unfortunately make this astronomical mistake all the time. Assuming that everything they believe about the beginning of universe is true is possible does not mean that IS how we got here. It is an inference based upon constants being the “givens” and allowing for no other variations. Scientists can say “we believe this might have happened”, “it might be possible to create life in this manner”. But it might be possible to create life in 100 different ways but because they might be able to demonstrate that it MIGHT have happened a specific way it does not logically follow that it DID happen that way. This is the huge logical fallacy of science when talking about anything historic. As you both demonstrated statistics and history do not go well together. All you’ve done is demonstrate how numbers can be used and abused.
Speaking of making mistakes with probability...
…you made the one I talk about here:
People Don’t Understand Probability
…and what has me scratching my head is that you clearly should know you’re making it, because you explained the error yourself right before you went on to commit it. First you correctly stated:
And then you proceeded to just ignore this for the rest of your post. And if you disagree, then kindly tell me… where exactly is it required that a specific sequence is “called out as it is dealt” in evolution? (answer: nowhere.)
You are simply coming along after the fact, looking at which evolutionary events have happened, declaring them to be the target of the process, exclaiming how amazingly unikely it was for the process to produce that exact sequence… therefore it was impossible it happened by chance. Which is precisely the error you described in that section I just quoted.
The analogy ins't perfect...
The card analogy isn’t mine—it’s not perfect but does illustrate the problem, as well as the error the professor made with the idea chance mutations could produce evolution.
The majority of genetic mutations are bad. In other words, if you’ve got 100 possibilities for a mutation, many of them are bad, and many cause harm. That means only a few sequences will work, the rest won’t (and may cause harm which terminates the evolutionary process).
Suppose we’re generous and 25% of mutations are actually good (even though only a fraction of those will cause evolutionary progress along the line you want), how long will it take for one of the 75% bad ones to come up? Obviously it’s more likely you’ll get successive bad mutations than successive good ones. You can go through millions of years of “good” mutations (even though that’s unlikely), and them bam the 8 of clubs comes up and kills the host. Start over.
To make the card analogy more accurate (but less simple), suppose you had to call the cards out, but you could choose 2 or 3 to “win” on each dealt card, but you also had to avoid 20 of the cards which cause you to instantly lose and start over.
Of course, then we can argue about how many cards you get to pick each turn (2? 3? 3 first, then 2 after?) to model the evolutionary process, how many “death” cards (representing fatal or bad mutations) are included which immediately end the game (30? 32? 40?) and how far in the deck you have to deal go before shuffling (since obviously a 52 card deck can’t represent billions and trillions of evolutionary trials).
All of that obscures the example, but won’t really change the probability much (10^68? 10^55? 10^83? they’re all absurdly unlikely). An illustrative analogy isn’t perfect, it’s meant to … illustrate. Besides, it’s the professors example, and showing the problem with it didn’t require changing his example.
The card analogy isn’t perfect (few are), but the idea any sequence produces evolutionary progress is false (a common mistake). More than one perhaps, but considerably less than all. Since most mutations aren’t beneficial, the only way billions of good successive mutations works is if some “force” guided the process and avoided all the negative possibilities.
I don’t meet many people still clinging to the idea random chance works for evolution as the probability is hugely against it (the monkey-and-typewriter problem, but with the twist many of the keys kills the monkey before he can finish typing)—an idea even Dawkins admits as he rejects chance mutations causing evolution.
Darrin's comments
Beloved it is with joy that i read the thread and your reasoning.
Might i suggest to your scientist readers that science and good logic alone will not lead one to the answers? Preconceptions are a difficult bias to leave out of the equation and can derail even the best among us. Even the esteemed Dr. Roger Penrose recognizes this fact. But may i humbly suggest that the brilliant doctor stops short in his journey…baffled by his discovery? I believe the answer is right under his nose (his inner man and mouth).
Simple men have discovered what the truly brilliant often miss because they fail to look in the right places. Those too impressed with themselves miss the answer while desperate people discover the answer upon reaching the end of themselves. The real answer…for those willing to pursue it…lies in crying out to God from a genuinely humble attitude. Those unwilling to seek out God simply are not as interested in the truth as they claim.
I know this appears simplistic, but if there is a God and if He wants to be involved in our lives then we should expect He give us options to discover Him. There will never be a telescope or microscope powerful enough to find Him…but we can find Him with our hearts and mouth.
This can be tested scientifically. Those that genuinely have made contact could be studied to see if the change (2Co 5:17) can be verified and what that change looks like.
We need to first make sure to identify the genuine from the placebo (those sugar coated in religiosity) or pretender. Then test only those that genuinely have satisfied the biblical test and see if there has been noticeable change. I can attest that while i’m certainly not perfect i am not the same person i used to be. We could also go to the jails around the country and see if any genuine conversions have produced changed lives. We could even look at the infamous “son of Sam” killer and his testimony towards the end of his life. He spoke with courage and conviction and did not use his conversion to get out of paying back to society for his ills. Instead he faced his punishment with integrity. We could listen to former drunks that now are preaching the gospel. Former (whatever) that now claim Christ. Instead of dismissing this…count it as evidence in the test.
Pretenders might fool the unlearned but they do not fool the others that have experienced the genuine changed life. Unfortunately the pretenders and deceived make it hard for the analytical mind to discount them. For this reason it is important to learn the difference between real gold and pyrite before coming to a conclusion.
I know lots of genuine and lots of pretenders so there must be a standard by which to measure (it wouldn’t be scientific otherwise) and that standard is Christ.
Does the person genuinely follow Christ or just prefer Him among the other choices? Is he a Christian by new birth or does he think he was always a Christian? John 3:3 addresses that one MUST be born-again. So the wrong answer here means they cannot be part of the test no matter how pious they appear.
Does the person attest to their life being transformed by coming to Christ or do they become uncomfortable with this question? Their response will help you differenctiate the real from the pretender.
A genuine believer will usually smile at the mention of the name of Jesus while a pretender will get his religious tone ready to respond. Does the person you are interviewing fondly speak of Christ or does he just get religious?
One can find that the research is not that difficult for the one genuinely seeking…other than making the researcher uncomfortable as well. But that uncomfortableness might be something you should take a closer look at as well as it might be like the engine warning light telling you that something is not right under the hood.
Use these guidelines and then test the market and see. Google Chrisitian websites for testimonies and You-tube video’s. Open the Bible and document your findings…paying particular attention to the Epistles as they address the Church (now).
Then simply conduct an unbiased and objective test on yourself…call out to God in genuineness and test the results for yourself. Cry out until you are certain if there really was a god that you have been heard. Make sure you are genuine…because God would know if you mock and just like you might ignore mockers He might ignore you.
Not only is this fair for all…it is the only fair way. No amount of money or education can give us advantage over the less fortunate. Approaching with a humble heart rather than an arrogant mind levels the playing field.
Do this and then you will know what the genuine Christians have known since Jesus’ resurrection. He alone is worth living for. Do this and foolish arguments will fall by the wayside. Do this and really live!
Folks…you are missing a lot if you don’t cry out to God…missing a lot. His love is so real…taste and see…cry out to Him.
The analogy works just fine actually.
You’re just not willing to accept that your application of probability to this issue is making the exact same error that that analogy illustrates, among other things.
Yes, they are. And they get weeded out of the population by natural selective pressures that are anything but random so that doesn’t actually matter.
First, there is no need for “generosity”. The percentage of beneficial mutations will effect rate of change, it will not however effect whether change occurs unless you lower the amount of beneficial and even neutral mutations to 0% and make 100% of mutations strongly deleterious. Unless that is the condition we are operating under, and it is not, evolutionary change is effectively inevitable.
Second, you just did it again. Where did that “along the line you want” come from? Who exactly is “wanting” any specific line of evolutionary development over any other line? You’re just sneaking that in there without any justification, and it’s resulting in you begging the argument. If someone “wants” a specific line to be followed in the first place then they are abviously this planner/creator/designer you’re trying to prove must exist and is guiding the process since there are no other candidates to fill such a role. And you can’t just assume they exist, so you can say they had a plan, so you can say evolution followed the plan, so you can say “wow, it was amazingly unlikely it would just happen to folow the designer’s plan by random chance… therefore there must be a designer”
I know you’re not making that argument explicitly, but as soon as you start sneaking in that “the way you want it to happen” condition you’re introducing it as a necesary criteria of your argument that there exists something doing the wanting while all this is going on. Which is what you’re supposed to be trying to prove in the first place, not starting out assuming it.
That is not in any way making the analogy more accurate. That is making it far less accurate. To begin with, there is no such thing as a “bad card” that would end the game in evolution. If a detrimental mutation develops in an individual that individual is out of the game, but evolution couldn’t care less about individuals. It is a process which acts on populations. The individual with the bad mutation gets selected against, they die off, the bad mutation is weeded out of the gene pool, and the game continues totally uninterupted. It is almost impossible to conceive of any possible detrimental mutation that could “end the game” of evolutionary development.
It still won't work.
Since most mutations are bad, and even harmful, for any possibility of long-term benefit to occur the beneficial mutations have to be greater than 50%. Over trillions of trials, if that’s not true, you’ll get more harm than good.
Las Vegas makes $$$ on that simple statistical truth. Sure, one or two people might walk away profitable (as long as they stop playing early before the probability evens out), but the longer you play, the more likely you are to lose. Same with evolution since the majority of mutations are bad—which I’m glad you agree with.
To use the old three laws of thermodynamics joke:
The longer you play, the worse it gets — just like Las Vegas which makes huge amounts of money on relatively small advantages (typically 1%-5% or so).
It’s not a pre-determined output I was referring to, but simply reducing the pool of good mutations even further. Suppose 25% are beneficial mutations. How many of those (for example) would benefit eye evolution, as opposed to leg development or something else? Much less. Thus, it’s even more likely you’ll have successive bad mutations before your eye ever completes evolving, as not even all the good mutations benefit eye evolution, for example.
You might have 75% bad, 20% non-bad (but useless), and only 5% beneficial. That makes the odds against success much worse.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
You already admitted most mutations are bad. So yes, there are if those bad mutations make that generation less likely to survive (the definition of bad)—it’s survival of the fittest, and bad mutations make that less likely. If that mutation proves fatal or less likely for the specie to survive, game over for that evolutionary line. And since most mutations are bad…
That’s why I didn’t mention the professors analogy before —those side issues obscure the main issue (the mathematical impossibility of evolution) and won’t really change the probability (you proved my point about the model being a distraction though)—the numbers are so large it doesn’t matter. The example could be off by a factor of trillions and it won’t change the result.
It’s simply an illustration of the staggering probability against evolution. For that it works well, and is something people can relate to instead of numbers like 10 to the 68th power. The professor tried to use the cards to prove evolution was possible; I simply pointed out the error of his example. Don’t get caught up with how accurately it models the alleged evolutionary process or you’ll miss the forest for the trees.
In any event, that covers the probability topic. You mentioned something else, which I hinted at last time with the monkey-typewriter problem and Dawkins, so I’m glad you raised it.
What are those? If it’s not random, that’s (gasp!) GOD (or whatever you want to call it) — some outside force steering the process. See previous articles where Dawkins admits God exists and attempts to claim evolution by fiat instead (ignoring the scientific method) and evolution’s problem of information for more detail—I won’t repeat it here.
Evolution — not only is probability against it, it can’t solve the information problem, it ignores the scientific method, and is thus by definition unscientific.
How evolution works...
This statement simply illustrates that you do not understand how the evolutionary process operates. It simply ignores the effects of natural selection.
Let us place the percentage of possible beneficial mutations at 0.1% of all possible mutations (which is much, much lower than reality, we’re just making a point). And let’s say the rate of harmful mutations is 50% (WAY higher than in reality,). The rest are neutral. They occur in non coding regions, or make a substitution that has no real effect, or the duplicate a section of code and make it redundant… (in reality, the vast majority of mutations)
So what happens? We’ve set our harmful mutation rate at 500 times higher than the beneficial rate! We’re doomed, right?
Not even remotely.
We have a population of this species… they’re reproducing like living things do. Now what happens?
Some percentage of the offspring get REALLY bad mutations. Like, instantly fatal. They die most likely before they’re even born, miscarriage. Mutation removed from population.
Some get slightly less bad but still very bad mutations. They survive through birth but die young. Mutation removed from population. (A very, very high deleterious mutation rate is giving or hypothetical population a fairly high infant mortality rate)
Some percentage get moderately bad mutations. They get born, they grow up… but they’re weak, or sickly, they’re more prone to get brought down by disease and even if they don’t they’re not a big hit with the ladies and don’t tend to reproduce. Mutations removed from population.
A bunch get neutral mutations. They do ok for themselves. Grow up. Have a few kids. Well, usually, I mean, you can still get hit by a bus or catch the plague or something… but the general statistical trend is they are moderately successful at passing on their genetic material. Mutations survive, or don’t. Variation in the genetic code of the population increases.
And once in a long, long while… a kid with one of those 0.1% of beneficial mutations is born. Now they could get hit by a bus too, no guarantees… but if they don’t they tend to be stronger, or faster, or smarter, or whatever benefit it is that this mutation conferred that allows them to be successful (maybe they’re just naturally smooth with the ladies). They grow up, have lots of kids, the kids inherit the mutation. They have the same statistical bias in favor of it being passed on so as time passes it becomes spread further and further through the population of successive generations and, eventually, odds are decent it reaches a state of fixation in the genome. Everyone has it. It has become a permanent aspect of the genetic code of the species.
That that happens has ABSOLUTELY NO RELIANCE on a beneficial mutation happening more often than a deleterious one. If it happens AT ALL eventually this occurs. And deleterious ones are simply constantly weeded from the group as they happen.
And over time, the genes of the population shift. Voila. Evolution has happened.
The fact of the matter is it is the opposite of improbable. Given sufficient time for the process to act it is inevitable. So whenever I see someone like you throwing around these claims that it is too improbable to imagine that is simply a flashing neon sign-post that you don’t know how evolution works.
As I said...
@Grant
As I already said, I think the probability discussion is complete. No sense repeating anymore as it quickly degrades into a yes-it-is no-it-isn’t exchange.
Deck of cards like the professor, a modified card game, using Las Vegas as an example, or other models. Still a loss—even Dawkins notes evolution requires some higher force to work when he says “No chance process could give rise to the prodigy of organized complexity that is the living world.” (see previously referenced article).
As already previously noted, debating over the specific mathematical model you want to use for evolution doesn’t change the probability much—it could be 10^68, 10^57 or 10^96.
It is clearly not complete...
…since you still are displaying severe misunderstandings of how it applies to an evolutionary process.
He was talking about natural selection, which is the perfectly mundane process I just finished explaining which covers why the low rate of beneficial mutations in the genome has no significant impact on the probability of evolution occurring and why, no, it is NOT “still a loss” when we’re dealing with such a process. He is not referring to some mystical “higher force”. Since it even says exactly that right in the block of text you quoted from him I am at a loss as to how you could have possibly honestly misinterpreted his comment in the manner you are doing so here.
Here we go again...
Dawkins said:
Chance obviously doesn’t work (as Dawkins admits) - if anyone thinks .01% probability works try their hand in Las Vegas where the odds are many times better. You’ll be the richest man in the world! But I wouldn’t recommend that action as … you’ll lose.
So evolution isn’t chance. What force drives it? Natural selection? That’s either random chance—some offspring get mutations, others don’t, some live, some die (which doesn’t work due to probability and no evolutionist actually believes) — or something is acting on evolution to guide it.
What is that?
And again, and again, and again...
…because you’re just ignoring the obvious to cling to your desired conclusion.
I just finished showing you exactly how a 0.1% chance of a beneficial mutation occurring is so far removed from 0.1% odds of winning in Vegas that if we geographically mapped them relative to each other they’d be located on different planets. I spelled out for you in as clear and simple a manner as I could how evolution works, how the natural selective process acts on newly introduced variations in the population and why that makes the proportion of good to bad possible mutations almost completely irrelevant to any argument evolution is improbable… and you haven’t addressed it in any way whatsoever. You have just repeated your “well Dawkins said it wasn’t chance” claim twice now and keep trying to compare this to the odds of winning in Vegas when it’s nothing of the kind.
Yes, Dawkins said it wasn’t just chance, because natural selection acts as a constant filter on the outcome of the random mutations that are occurring to filter out any that are deleterious which makes the end product highly likely to contain only neutral or beneficial change. In that sense, it as as much “not chance” that evolution produces beneficial changes over the long term as it is “not chance” that if you drop a rock, it goes down instead of up.
And it’s acting to “guide” evolution the same way gravity acts to “guide” that rock to the ground if you drop it out of your hand. Your attempt to portray this as some kind of intelligent force is as far from sensible as if I were to claim there was some intelligent force acting to make sure that rock always went the right direction when you dropped it because what are the odds it would do that randomly out of all the possible directions it could have gone??? It can’t be chance… therefore design!
Doesn’t work that way.
Thanks for the thoughts
@Grant
It’s been an interesting conversation and you’ve added some ideas, but even you admit it’s getting repetitive—no need to rehash the same points ad nauseam with different examples each time yielding the same impossible evolutionary result. You’ve presented your idea, people can weigh your responses for themselves.
Thanks for stopping by and adding your ideas; it’s always interesting to hear other proposals.
No problem.
To leave off with a final correction, the example I presented yielded an inevitable, not an impossible, evolutionary result when the actual conditions evolution operates under were introduced. An example you have decided simply not to deal with.
But since you have made it clear you have no further interest in discussing it I suppose this ends the conversation.
“The Bible says that God
“The Bible says that God created the beasts of the earth and then made man (Genesis I). The Bible also states that God created man and then the beasts (Genesis II).”
You need to read again
Infinite Universe, Infinite Possibilities
I probably should not commenting here, since I know just enough about statistics and probability to keep me out of the casinos, but I’d like to add something I heard from someone who knows more than I. She said that in an infinite universe, everything, no matter how improbable, must happen an infinite number of times. So there is no problem here; we’re just the result of an improbable probability. Of course, this presupposes that the universe is infinite, a proposition about which I have insufficient data to form a valid opinion.
Just thought I’d throw that one in to keep the pot boiling.
A better card example
Excuse me if I’m repeating anything that has already been said, considering I haven’t read this entire thread and all of the comments. I have revised the card example to account for reducible complexity and natural selection. If we let a specific order of cards represent a certain species and each of the cards represent a specific gene, we can see how a specific ordering of the cards is not such an improbable configuration through natural selection. Lets say that the ace of spades occurring represents a desirable gene. All trials that deliver a configuration with the ace of spades first will represent a very simple organism with suitable traits for survival. All the other trials will “die off”. The probability of having such a configuration is just 1/52. We now only have to worry about trials that deliver configurations with the ace of spades first. Reconsidering our situation, we now find that the probability of obtaining the complete organism is 1/(51!). Now lets say configurations with the 5 of clubs as the second card are those suitable for survival. The probability of obtaining such an organism is now 1/51, since we already have surviving organism with the ace of spades as the first card, while any other is discarded. With configurations with these two cards first surviving unlike the rest, the final probability is now 1/(50!). This process repeats until we have the exact deck we want. Considering the grand number of genetic mutations that occur, there are many trials, and thus the probability of evolution NOT occurring is the miniscule one!
Evolution:Mathematically Improbable , Scientifically impossible
First off, it is impossible to give a definite fraction for the probability of everything in the universe coming about by chance. but if you would like to figure it out make sure you count every single variable and characteristic there is (ex: why is grass green instead of orange, why are leaves the shape they are instead of another shape) fact is just one characteristic of any one thing is a fraction, if im having a good day i could have also had a bad day, a mediokre day, a fantastic day, if those were all the options my chances of having a good day are 1/4. what are the chances that grass is green, what are all the other colors it could be? if there are 100 colors, the chance is 1 in 100 (1/100) and thats just one characteristic we could also verify that grass grows at a certain rate and stops at a certain length, and also you must take this 1/100 or 1/4 and multiply by 0 because according to evolution we came from a small particle that exploded that essentially came from nothing, but even if you do give them the ‘1’ to start with so that they can even do the equation for the probability the outcome will be 1/more zeros than you could say,read, or count and those are just characteristics we havent even delved into how the organisms we are observing work, what dna they have that give them life or how they magically evolved the materials needed in order to do the work they need to do in order to survive AND evolve the instructions to know how to use those materials at their desposal, please include that number as well. YES there IS a mathematical probability that evolution could have occured, but if the number is so small that you cant possibly even solve it then why bother? some scientists are the hardest thinkers of todays society, but they choose to apply to such a incomplete and misguided idea. Scientifically? well lets take a look at the big bang theory.. physics is one of the most respectable science studies there are, its OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, DEMONSTRATABLE, REPEATABLE which is what good science is, look up the law of angular momentum then explain why some of our planets, galaxies, moons spin backwards? don’t respond with that “science is an ever learning and expanding process” crap, because thats unfalsifiability, and isnt that what you pin on us christians when we say “god did it”? . lets see, if god did it the probability is 1 in 1 , 100%… because when you say god you are explaining a being greater than yourself that is unlimited and has no boundaries (which is unfathomable, but that is what god is…) Im not going to say we should put religion in our textbooks, so get evolution out because thats all it is, is a religion you have to beleive that there is no god. get back to me on this please. id love to know what the probability is for this and why all of your ‘evidence’ for evolution is falsifiable.. dont try to explain to me how we evolved. if you want to talk origins start with the beginning. if thats the big bang theory then explain where those particles came from please. and as for ‘God using evolution’ i dont know what god your talking about cause its most obviously not jesus christ because he wrote a book telling you how long it took him to make the heavens and the earth, the verses in the bible that say “1 day to god is a thousand years and one thousand years is a day to god” are not saying that he is too dumb to create time and know how to communicate through it. i beleive god is intelligent enough to know how to make the bible understandable to the average person, so stop reading into it so much, if it says 6 days, it must say that for a reason.