Math Refutes Evolution??

[hithesh]

"The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power"

I've heard on this forum, by YECs and their kin, that math refutes evolution, and this seems to be the figure that they use. They assume that since the chance of a man evolving is so "slim", that man evolving is impossible.

The problem is, YECs who use this number, have a really poor understanding of probability.

Allow me to explain:

Now we all know that if we flip a quarter, the chances are half the time you toss the coin it will land on heads (.5) and half the time you toss the coin it will land on tails (.5).

Now the question is if I toss a coin 1,000 times, what is the probability that I will roll heads half the time?

ANSWER: The more times I toss the coin, the closer the probability will approach (1) or 100%, that I will end up with heads half the time. So the probability of heads being .5 with a 1,000 tosses is close to 100%

Another take would be, let's assume that the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in a billion. If a billion people played the lottery, what is the chance that at least one of them would win? It's not one in a billion you see, but close to a 100%.

In understanding the chance of a human evolving from such a probability (1 in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power), it would have to be relative to the rolls, the tosses, the flips, how many people are playing the lottery.

To get a vague understanding of how many flips/tosses/rolls, let look at some partial figures:

Each of us are composed of close to 30 trillion cells, every-time each cell replicates at-least 3 billion nucleotides have to be assembled properly. At least 2 million times every hour a single cell has to repair breaks in a strand of it's DNA.

to get an ugly idea of tosses, it would be some like 30,000,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000 x 2,000,000,000, time individuals in the species x the existence of life x etc. x etc. x etc.

That's an "ugly" formula, but I'm using it to show you, how easy it is to get (1 in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power) to evolve a man.

The closer the number of tosses approach this (10 to the 2,000,000,000 power), the closer that the chance of an evolved man existing becomes 1, or %100.

Unless, you're showing that the amount of tosses is much fewer than (10 to the 2,000,000,000 power), using math to refute evolution, only shows your lack of understanding of probability.

 

[laptoppop]

Hitesh,

Your profile lists you as OEC -- how do you define your beliefs?
Thanks.

 

[hithesh]

Hitesh,

Your profile lists you as OEC -- how do you define your beliefs?
Thanks.

Uhm, my profile lists me as TE.

 

[laptoppop]

Sorry, my bad. I could have sworn that I went to it before and saw OEC. Thanks.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, my bad. I could have sworn that I went to it before and saw OEC. Thanks.

I'm pretty sure it did, too. Looks like we've got ourselves a convert.

 

[hithesh]

I'm pretty sure it did, too. Looks like we've got ourselves a convert.

 

[busterdog]

The problem is, YECs who use this number, have a really poor understanding of probability.

And TE has a poor understanding of tautology.

Sorry, no. The math is still a problem.

Evolution takes what it observes now and extrapolates backwards to what caused it. That is exactly the same as finding the right lottery winner by chance even after he has been chosen. You just assume that you know how won. Even if you are right about who won, the issue is still whether you have proven that you know who won, not whether it was probable in the first place.

I hear the footsteps of Shernren, with whom I have a continuing dispute about what seems to me to be a rather obvious point.

to get an ugly idea of tosses, it would be some like 30,000,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000 x 2,000,000,000, time individuals in the species x the existence of life x etc. x etc. x etc.

The chance would be zero, unless you could pick the right cell at the right time and clone it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

hithesh,

I agree with the principle of your OP. However, I think we need to be careful about the "odds of getting half".

Here's what I mean. What are the odds of getting 500 heads in 1000 tosses? I bet it isn't 50%. What are the odds of getting exactly one head in 1000 throws? There are 1000 possible sequences of exactly 1 head. Etc.

Rough guessing it: given that 499 heads, 500 heads, and 501 have roughly the same odds, exactly 500 heads should be less than 33% (given we also have to account for all other possible combinations).

Technically, I think it is (1000 choose 500)/ sum of (1000 choose i) for i = 1 to 1000.

Anyway, I think "getting half" would incline readers to think "500". The wording should say "about half".

[/pedantic mode]

 

[Scotishfury09]

"The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power"

I've heard on this forum, by YECs and their kin, that math refutes evolution, and this seems to be the figure that they use. They assume that since the chance of a man evolving is so "slim", that man evolving is impossible.

The problem is, YECs who use this number, have a really poor understanding of probability.

Allow me to explain:

Now we all know that if we flip a quarter, the chances are half the time you toss the coin it will land on heads (.5) and half the time you toss the coin it will land on tails (.5).

Now the question is if I toss a coin 1,000 times, what is the probability that I will roll heads half the time?

ANSWER: The more times I toss the coin, the closer the probability will approach (1) or 100%, that I will end up with heads half the time. So the probability of heads being .5 with a 1,000 tosses is close to 100%

Another take would be, let's assume that the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in a billion. If a billion people played the lottery, what is the chance that at least one of them would win? It's not one in a billion you see, but close to a 100%.

In understanding the chance of a human evolving from such a probability (1 in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power), it would have to be relative to the rolls, the tosses, the flips, how many people are playing the lottery.

To get a vague understanding of how many flips/tosses/rolls, let look at some partial figures:

Each of us are composed of close to 30 trillion cells, every-time each cell replicates at-least 3 billion nucleotides have to be assembled properly. At least 2 million times every hour a single cell has to repair breaks in a strand of it's DNA.

to get an ugly idea of tosses, it would be some like 30,000,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000 x 2,000,000,000, time individuals in the species x the existence of life x etc. x etc. x etc.

That's an "ugly" formula, but I'm using it to show you, how easy it is to get (1 in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power) to evolve a man.

The closer the number of tosses approach this (10 to the 2,000,000,000 power), the closer that the chance of an evolved man existing becomes 1, or %100.

Unless, you're showing that the amount of tosses is much fewer than (10 to the 2,000,000,000 power), using math to refute evolution, only shows your lack of understanding of probability.

I think you might be the one who doesn't quite understand probability.

Your "ugly" formula doesn't even come close to cutting it.

30,000,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000 x 2,000,000,000 is 1.8 x 10 ^ 31. Unless you can give me a better understanding of how your "x etc" gives close to 1,999,999,969 more zeros, I think you need to rework your math.

"Times existence of life"?? What? When did that become a number? Individuals in the species; well you've got about 6.5 billion right now. That takes off 9 more zeros. At this rate, we don't get there any time soon. Let's even take your "one hour" stat.

For the sake of this demonstration, I'll take Humans to be as old as 160,000 years.

160,000 years x 365 days per year x 24 hours a day = 1,401,600,000

Again, we've taken off another 9 zeros!!! Trying to calculate this is beyond absurd.

 

[hithesh]

6.5 billion right now. That takes off 9 more zeros. At this rate, we don't get there any time soon. Let's even take your "one hour" stat.

For the sake of this demonstration, I'll take Humans to be as old as 160,000 years.

160,000 years x 365 days per year x 24 hours a day = 1,401,600,000

Well first of all, you wouldn't be concerned with "humans" but all that led to "Humans", starting at simple cells, so you're actually looking at "4000 million years of simple cells". And it wouldn't be what "exists" now, but what has ever existed.

Let's think of evolution, and natural selection, as a safe with a long numerical combination, as long as the individual has sufficient time to try all possible combinations, he will eventually unlock it.

What I was getting at in the original post, is that 1 in 10 to the 200,000,000 power, is meaningless unless it's relative to the amount of times the combinations have been tried.

Trying to calculate this is beyond absurd.

Of course it's absurd there are so many other variables that would need to be taken into consideration, such as the probability of positive mutations, negative mutations, neutral mutations, how affected was the variant's fitness by the mutations, etc..

It's absurd becomes anyone even familiar with how evolution works, would see how quickly the amount of tosses would reach 10^200,000,000, over 4 billion years.

If you even started to do so, you see that you are dealing with quite large numbers, multiplied by other large numbers, that reveal that amount of tosses, can easily be as high as the probability of a human evolving.

If you are using that number, for an arguement against evolution, you should understand what that number means, and what each toss represents, or the number is irrelevant.

You have to show that the numer of flips < 10^200,000,000, if you cannot show that, than using that number, just shows ones own ignorance.

 

[hithesh]

hithesh


Here's what I mean. What are the odds of getting 500 heads in 1000 tosses? I bet it isn't 50%. What are the odds of getting exactly one head in 1000 throws? There are 1000 possible sequences of exactly 1 head. Etc.

Well, applying the rule of large numbers, if you are not eventually getting to (.5) for one side of the coin, then saying you have a .5 chance that the coin lands on heads, is false.

technically you probably won't get (.5), you would get some thing like (.500000000000000000009894893894893849), all you need is a large enough number of tosses to yield a number close to (.5), the more you toss the closer you get.

Rough guessing it: given that 499 heads, 500 heads, and 501 have roughly the same odds, exactly 500 heads should be less than 33% (given we also have to account for all other possible combinations).

We are refering to chance, it does not have to be exactly 500, but enough to yield as close to .5 as possible.

The probablity that a coin flipped will land on heads .5 ( close to it as possible) approaches close to 1 the more you toss.

If I tell you there's a 99.0000000000000000003% chance of rain tommorow, and someone else tells you no, there's a 99.0000000000000000098% chance of rain, chances are it's going to rain regardless.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Well first of all, you wouldn't be concerned with "humans" but all that led to "Humans", starting at simple cells, so you're actually looking at "4000 million years of simple cells". And it wouldn't be what "exists" now, but what has ever existed.

Ok, you want to change from 160,000 to 4,000,000,000? Congratulations. You've earned yourself 4 zeros.

Let's think of evolution, and natural selection, as a safe with a long numerical combination, as long as the individual has sufficient time to try all possible combinations, he will eventually unlock it.

What I was getting at in the original post, is that 1 in 10 to the 200,000,000 power, is meaningless unless it's relative to the amount of times the combinations have been tried.

Of course it's absurd there are so many other variables that would need to be taken into consideration, such as the probability of positive mutations, negative mutations, neutral mutations, how affected was the variant's fitness by the mutations, etc..

Ok... for as little I know about evolution. I think that most mutations are neutral. Correct me if I'm wrong. That would just hinder your argument. You still have soooooooo many more "etc's" to fill in this gap from the first celled organism to humans.

It's absurd becomes anyone even familiar with how evolution works, would see how quickly the amount of tosses would reach 10^200,000,000, over 4 billion years.

If you even started to do so, you see that you are dealing with quite large numbers, multiplied by other large numbers, that reveal that amount of tosses, can easily be as high as the probability of a human evolving.

Ok, a large number, say 1,000,000, gives 6 zeros. You need to find me another 333,333,333 "large" numbers. Can you do that? You mean to tell me there are close to 333 million "large" numbers found in evolution?

If you are using that number, for an arguement against evolution, you should understand what that number means, and what each toss represents, or the number is irrelevant.

You have to show that the numer of flips < 10^200,000,000, if you cannot show that, than using that number, just shows ones own ignorance.

I understand what the number means. You don't quite understand how to actually get to that number. And frankly, I think you need to show me how it could even come close to 10^2,000,000,000. Saying, "It's absurd becomes anyone even familiar with how evolution works, would see how quickly the amount of tosses would reach 10^200,000,000, over 4 billion years" doesn't cut it.

 

[laptoppop]

Ok... for as little I know about evolution. I think that most mutations are neutral. Correct me if I'm wrong. That would just hinder your argument. You still have soooooooo many more "etc's" to fill in this gap from the first celled organism to humans.

Actually, most mutations are neutral or harmful. The harmful ones tend to get eliminated by natural selection, but can still contribute to the mutation load of a given population. Even some mutations which might be seen as beneficial, such as bacteria gaining resistance to an antibiotic, often come with other negative side effects, such as reduced motility.

 

[Scotishfury09]

What's this?! A creationist correcting a creationist? I thought it was only a myth!

Thanks pop, but I also see that that point would really help his argument. More non-positive mutations would mean more need to have more "flips". I'll concede that point, but you've still got a ways to go before coming up with 10^2,000,000,000

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, applying the rule of large numbers, if you are not eventually getting to (.5) for one side of the coin, then saying you have a .5 chance that the coin lands on heads, is false.

technically you probably won't get (.5), you would get some thing like (.500000000000000000009894893894893849), all you need is a large enough number of tosses to yield a number close to (.5), the more you toss the closer you get.



We are refering to chance, it does not have to be exactly 500, but enough to yield as close to .5 as possible.

The probablity that a coin flipped will land on heads .5 ( close to it as possible) approaches close to 1 the more you toss.

If I tell you there's a 99.0000000000000000003% chance of rain tommorow, and someone else tells you no, there's a 99.0000000000000000098% chance of rain, chances are it's going to rain regardless.

I guess my point is that there is a difference between the probability of 500 heads and saying that after 1000 throws you should get enough heads to be confident that the probability of getting heads is .5.

 

[Jadis40]

I'm pretty sure it did, too. Looks like we've got ourselves a convert.

Actually two converts. I changed mine from OEC to TE a few weeks ago.

 

[crawfish]

The probability arguments are not valid, anyway. Imagine figuring the odds from the day I was born that I would be sitting in this exact spot typing on this exact computer on this exact website in this exact thread. The odds would be pretty astronomical; however, as each event happened in my life it lowered the odds that the next event would happen, which then lowered the odds that the following event would happen; by the time you get to this morning, it is quite likely that I'd be here doing this.

In other words, you can't figure the probabilities the way they're doing it. , because as events happen it automatically reduces the possible events that can occur the future. Think of traveling down a simple tree structure that begins with two choices and ends with 2^100 separate endpoints, each level splitting the previous level's nodes by two; the odds for reaching any specific endpoint are astronomical, but the odds for reaching any endpoint is 100%. In other words, SOME endpoint is going to be reached, and once that point is reached the original odds for reaching that point become moot.

 

[hithesh]

I understand what the number means.

Well, here's the problem, to use the number to dismiss, evolution, you have to explain what it means in you're argument, or not use it in your argument at all.

Any YEC site that even presents the number, clearly cuts and paste from a particular source, with no further explanation. It becomes quite apparent that they don't even understand what the number means in terms of natural selection.

They "source" the number to prominent Atheists such as Carl Sagan, so I would be interested to see what Sagan used to determine that number, and what he is factoring in to it's estimate.

In revisiting the long combination of natural selection, every-time one dial clicks, the combination decrease in length, so probability increases after each needed part of the combination.

It should also be noted that for each correct combination (positive mutation), the more attempts at dialing are produced (more "fit" offspring ), so while the numbers needed for the combination to open the safe decreases, the number of attempts to dial exponentially increases.

10^200,000,000, is not even close to the number of cells that have ever existed

There's no need for me to calculate that amount of cells that have accumulated over 4 billion years, from a single cell, to the cells in plants, to the cells in whales, etc. etc.... You would actually need to factor in even more that: you would not only consider the 30 trillion cells that exist at one time in an individual, but how many cells have existed during that individuals life. Some cells last a day and other cells such as red blood cells can last up to 120 days.

I have no need to continue working out this number, since I am not the one opposing the accepted "Theory", to do so for the benefit of individuals such as Kurt Wise, who says he does not care if all the evidence points to evolution (a huge indicator that he sees that it does), that he would continue to believe in 6 day creation, would just be a waste of time on my part.

But it would be quit important for you to figure it out, because the burden of proof is on you.

If you can prove it, that the numbers of dials dialed< is less the number of dials needed to evolve a man, then hey, I'll be the first to admit that evolution is false. I just showed you were and how you would start.

I only believe in evolution because the evidence points to it, if you can provide the evidence needed to point me the other way, I'll become a tee-shirt sporting, bumper sticker promoting, YEC.

While Kurt Wise, will always be the same.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Well, here's the problem, to use the number to dismiss, evolution, you have to explain what it means in you're argument, or not use it in your argument at all.

Any YEC site that even presents the number, clearly cuts and paste from a particular source, with no further explanation. It becomes quite apparent that they don't even understand what the number means in terms of natural selection.

They "source" the number to prominent Atheists such as Carl Sagan, so I would be interested to see what Sagan used to determine that number, and what he is factoring in to it's estimate.

In revisiting the long combination of natural selection, every-time one dial clicks, the combination decrease in length, so probability increases after each needed part of the combination.

It should also be noted that for each correct combination (positive mutation), the more attempts at dialing are produced (more "fit" offspring ), so while the numbers needed for the combination to open the safe decreases, the number of attempts to dial exponentially increases.

10^200,000,000, is not even close to the number of cells that have ever existed

There's no need for me to calculate that amount of cells that have accumulated over 4 billion years, from a single cell, to the cells in plants, to the cells in whales, etc. etc.... You would actually need to factor in even more that: you would not only consider the 30 trillion cells that exist at one time in an individual, but how many cells have existed during that individuals life. Some cells last a day and other cells such as red blood cells can last up to 120 days.

I have no need to continue working out this number, since I am not the one opposing the accepted "Theory", to do so for the benefit of individuals such as Kurt Wise, who says he does not care if all the evidence points to evolution (a huge indicator that he sees that it does), that he would continue to believe in 6 day creation, would just be a waste of time on my part.

But it would be quit important for you to figure it out, because the burden of proof is on you.

If you can prove it, that the numbers of dials dialed< is less the number of dials needed to evolve a man, then hey, I'll be the first to admit that evolution is false. I just showed you were and how you would start.

I only believe in evolution because the evidence points to it, if you can provide the evidence needed to point me the other way, I'll become a tee-shirt sporting, bumper sticker promoting, YEC.

While Kurt Wise, will always be the same.

How can you say the burden of proof is on me? You're the one sporting this theory of the number of flips being close to that number. You have this completely backwards. You need to show me how the number of flips could even come close to support your idea of probability.

Seeing how there's no real way to guess how many life forms could have been on the earth since its existence, I'm gonna take a wild stab at a number. Let's say 100 trillion, I would even go as high as 10,000,000,000,000 but it's not gonna help you much. I could be way off in any direction. Tell me if you think you have a better idea of a number. Let's say there's an average of 15 years for every life form since the first one. Once again, tell me if these figures are off, but I think once you see the end result it won't matter all that much. We'll also assume that these 30 trillion cells replicate every 4 days on average.

Let's take all of these numbers along with your previous numbers given.

100,000,000,000 x 15 years x 365 days x 30,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000 x 2,000,000,000 x 4 = 3.942 x 10 ^ 44.

My point is that no matter how many of something you think there are or how many different possibilities of those things you think there are you aren't gonna come REMOTELY close to 10^2,000,000,000. You keep saying these flips come close, but you have no idea. They don't. Not at all. No way. Your theory is completely debunk. It's not my theory I am trying to prove. It's yours I'm trying to disprove. Back it up with something.

 

[busterdog]

Seeing how there's no real way to guess how many life forms could have been on the earth since its existence, I'm gonna take a wild stab at a number. Let's say 100 trillion, I would even go as high as 10,000,000,000,000 but it's not gonna help you much. I could be way off in any direction. Tell me if you think you have a better idea of a number. Let's say there's an average of 15 years for every life form since the first one. Once again, tell me if these figures are off, but I think once you see the end result it won't matter all that much. We'll also assume that these 30 trillion cells replicate every 4 days on average.

Are you saying a much higher number of lifeforms should be possible? That is a very interesting argument.

If randomness were truly the process of evolution and if the math proposed were to work at all, why would you have the rather limited number of lifeforms that we do have? Why do we have animals with single notochords, rather than groups of three or both dorsal and ventral spines? Why aren't there six legged mammals? Why aren't there land sponges? Or spongebobs (that would be a compelling argument for atheists indeed!)?