You are hereThe Probability of Evolution
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.
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.