Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
With the arguments of the mathematical impossibility of evolution, I would like to postulate the mathematical impossibility of removing 10 socks from a sock drawer.
To start with, I have a drawer full of 100 socks. 90 are white, 10 are black. I wish to remove all 10 black socks from the sock drawer. The catch is, I have to remove them by picking socks at random. Furthermore, if I accidentally pick out a white sock, I have to chuck everything back in the drawer and start over. So how impossible is this?
The probability of picking the first black sock is 1 in 10. So not likely, but not farfetched. But with each black sock removed, the probability of picking the next one decreases. For example, the probability of the second black sock is 1 in 11. The probability of the third is 1 in 12.25. And so on.
Furthermore, because there is no margin for error, the total probability of picking out all 10 black socks in a row are the individual probabilities multiplied together. And the probability of doing such a thing is about 1 in 17300000000000 (assuming I didn't pooch the math). Even if you pulled out one sock per second, it would take you over 500000 years to run through all the possibilities.
Therefore, it's impossible to remove the 10 black socks.
But what's the problem with this scenario? Two things are missing: recursion and selection. Recursion is the process by which something is based on the previous results of a process. IOW, if I pull out a black sock there is nothing that says I must chuck it back in the drawer if I happen to pull out a white sock. A recursive process would allow me to "keep" any black socks. Second, selection would allow me to discard any white socks I happen to pick out by accident.
People that calculate impossible probabilities of evolution tend to ignore these two factors. To them, evolution becomes an "all or nothing" scenario. There is no room for error, no recursion, no selection. But evolution is not like that. The recursive nature of evolution means we are working with previous genetic code in the gene pool, not a blank slate. New organisms are based on previous organisms (just like you are based on the DNA of your parents; you didn't poof out of thin air). And natural selection exists and weeds out organisms less adapted to survive in a given environment, while preserving those that are more adapted.
So if one wishes to calculate the improbability of evolution, one must take into account selection and recursion. Otherwise, you ain't dealing with evolution.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Last edited by Pete Harcoff; 24th March 2005 at 12:12 PM.
Reason: grammar
*invents an Infinite Improbability Drive, which makes possible: evolution, traffic jams and road construction when one is in a rush, and the phenomenon of having exact change only to drop a coin which promply rolls under something immovable.*
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But of course they'll find some way to weasel out of it (most likely by derailing it) and avoid truly answering it.
Or they'll just pretend they didn't see the thread and not reply.
Prove me wrong! I dare ya!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There are Creationists, and there are Realists. Which one are you? - Dracil "The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest
"There may be many other fish in the sea, but there are just as many fishermen." - Dracil
__________________ California State Law:No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour. New York State Law:The penalty for jumping off a building exceeding 500ft in height is death.
Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish: For that, we call him evil.
Jesus burns people like Anne Frank for being Jewish forever: For that, Christians call him good. ~ todangst
The exact probability of picking ten black socks and only black socks out of a group of 100 is 1 in 17,310,309,456,440 or .0000000000057769%. One thing you forgot to add though is that that is the chance of picking out any 10 socks in a row. So basically, to pick out ten socks from 100 (regardless of color) you have a 0% chance of picking any particular combination. So you have to go sockless for a while.
The exact probability of picking ten black socks and only black socks out of a group of 100 is 1 in 17,310,309,456,440 or .0000000000057769%. One thing you forgot to add though is that that is the chance of picking out any 10 socks in a row.
No, I mentioned that:
"Furthermore, because there is no margin for error, the total probability of picking out all 10 black socks in a row are the individual probabilities multiplied together."
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
ummm I'm not seeing it. You only referred to the probability of removing black socks, and not that the odds of picking out any combination at all. You did mention it in the other thread, but not this one. I think it's a difficult thing for people unfamiliar with statistics to grasp: that to pick 10 black socks out of 10 black and 90 white is 1:17,310,309,456,440 but so is picking out any 10 white socks out of 100 white socks.
ummm I'm not seeing it. You only referred to the probability of removing black socks, and not that the odds of picking out any combination at all. You did mention it in the other thread, but not this one. I think it's a difficult thing for people unfamiliar with statistics to grasp: that to pick 10 black socks out of 10 black and 90 white is 1:17,310,309,456,440 but so is picking out any 10 white socks out of 100 white socks.
Oops, sorry I misread. I thought you were referring to me not mentioning that that probablity is picking out ten black socks specifically in a row.
But the odds of picking out any 10 white socks from 100 white socks is exactly 1:1. Only if you are picking out 10 specific white socks (without specifying the order) is the probability the same as picking 10 black socks from the 100 socks.
If the specific order matters, then the probabilities become more remote.
And just for interests sake, the odds of picking out any 10 white socks from 10 black/90 white without accidently picking out a black sock is about 1 in 3.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Linear Mode
