Chance of Evolution. Steps 1 to 3.

[Micaiah]

This thread is the result of previous discussions on the probability of evolution occurring.

These discussions are found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2385889-monkeys-in-the-cow-shed.html&page=1&pp=20

and here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2352709-does-evolution-have-a-chance.html

Dr Lee Spetner has prepared a calculation that demonstrates this is impossible. The various parameters and assumptions used in the calculations will be listed below and discussed in detail.

This is my interpretation of Spetner's explanations and if wrong is found it may lie in my interpretation and explanation. Spetner is not infallible, but I have found that most of my own initial objections were dismissed as I gained a greater understanding of his methodology. I hope you will be prepared to approach the whole matter in a similar frame of mind.

I'm starting at page 94 of Spetner's book "Not by Chance" whose reference is given above in the other threads. The chapter is "Is the deck stacked?". Before proceding with the calulations I will begin by listing each of the parameters Spetner uses in the calculations. This will give people a chance to discuss them in detail and rise any objections they may have as we go.

 

[Grengor]

Looking forward to it.

 

[Micaiah]

Parameter 1.

The chance of an event considered by most people to be impossible is 1 in 10^45. That is the chance of tossing 150 coins and each giving a head.

 

[Grengor]

Parameter 1.

The chance of an event considered by most people to be impossible is 1 in 10^45. That is the chance of tossing 150 coins and each giving a head.

I would bet my money every time that it wouldn't always end up heads, but 1 chance is still a chance.

 

[HairlessSimian]

This thread is the result of previous discussions on the probability of evolution occurring.

These discussions are found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2385889-monkeys-in-the-cow-shed.html&page=1&pp=20

and here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2352709-does-evolution-have-a-chance.html

Dr Lee Spetner has prepared a calculation that demonstrates this is impossible. The various parameters and assumptions used in the calculations will be listed below and discussed in detail.

This is my interpretation of Spetner's explanations and if wrong is found it may lie in my interpretation and explanation. Spetner is not infallible, but I have found that most of my own initial objections were dismissed as I gained a greater understanding of his methodology. I hope you will be prepared to approach the whole matter in a similar frame of mind.

I'm starting at page 94 of Spetner's book "Not by Chance" whose reference is given above in the other threads. The chapter is "Is the deck stacked?". Before proceding with the calulations I will begin by listing each of the parameters Spetner uses in the calculations. This will give people a chance to discuss them in detail and rise any objections they may have as we go.

The Judaica Press is his publisher. Gotta wonder how unbiased Spetner is. He's been refuted by Perakh.

 

[Lucretius]

And the odds of rolling a certain string of die will decrease with each roll, following the pattern of 6^-n (remember that probability will approach zero as it becomes less and less possible.)

Look at the pattern:
1 Roll = .16% chance of a certain number
5 Rolls = .0001% chance of a certain string of five numbers
20 Rolls = .00000000000000027% of a certain string of numbers
50 Rolls = 1.2 x 10^-39
100 Rolls = 1.5x10^-78

I don't feel I need to go on. Here is the big factor: did we have this order in mind? Or was it random? If we were trying to get a certain order out of 100 rolls, we most likely wouldn't get it — the odds are against something that we are trying to do. However, if it is random, and then we look at the probability afterwards, this is different.

 

[notto]

Parameter 1.

The chance of an event considered by most people to be impossible is 1 in 10^45. That is the chance of tossing 150 coins and each giving a head.

And what's the chance of tossing heads 149 times and tails the last?
How about the chance of tossing 1 tail, 148 heads, and a tail?

Spentners probability seems to fall in to the same failings as all other creationists. It doesn't take into account all possible solutions and it seems to only focus on one posibility while neglecting that any number of them could provide beneficial outcomes. Evolution is not predestined to any solution.

Does Spentner list these 'requirments' of evolution that you have been so elusive about? It would probably be helpful if you listed those here. You've mentioned them in a few of your posts, but you never seem to be willing to share exactly what they are.

 

[Micaiah]

Lucretius,

First at this point I'm not using the tossing of a coin as an analogy for evolution but rather to illustrate the 'definition' of an event most people would consider to be impossible.

The Judaica Press is his publisher. Gotta wonder how unbiased Spetner is. He's been refuted by Perakh.

Perhaps you could post a link to the refutation and demonstrate your understanding of it by pointing out the porblems with Spetner's method in your own words as we proceed.

 

[notto]

He's been refuted by Perakh.

And it seems that Micaiah continues to fall for the emotional language of 'getting all heads' or getting 'shuffled cards all in order' that he discusses. This of course avoids the reality that any of those combinations has the same probability of happening as an order that to our subjective eyes would seem to not be a problem at all.

The argument injects emotional appeal into the numbers to persuade (and con) those who they wish to baffle.

 

[Valkhorn]

This probability argument has been refuted many times. The easiest way I can think of to refute it is that it should be reworded. The probability of it happening AGAIN genome by genome by generation is pretty much impossible. But the fact that it happened isn't impossible since it was not by random chance.

Evolution is best defined as "The non-random selection of randomly varying replicators". So let's get this straight, let's take a simple string of letters that's 9 characters long. But, let's say that the word "Evolution" meant the chance of least survival. Basically you would have a program that started with the string:

ENEKFNEKG

And because a particular word means the best survival the chances are with the first generation the E would be kept out of all offspring:

ELEIFHWLN

Next might be the N:

And so forth. So really you could end up with the 'goal' by a few more steps, yes, but chances are it will be a few more steps than that. However, it definately won't be impossible.

Honestly, I don't like hearing probability arguments because it only shows ignorance in two subjects. Not only does it show an ignorance in math/probability, it shows a gross incompetence of the understanding of evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

Notto,

You either did not understand or did not read my previous. If you did, you would recognise that your comments are irrelevant and serve only to demosntrate your own ignorance and prejudice.

 

[Lucretius]

Can you get to your math already Micaiah?

 

[notto]

Notto,

You either did not understand or did not read my previous. If you did, you would recognise that your comments are irrelevant and serve only to demosntrate your own ignorance and prejudice.

Considering the argument that you are presenting here has been refuted on several occasions yet you keep beating the dead horse, I think I understand your argument all too well.

As far as ignorance, perhaps you can educate me.

And what's the chance of tossing heads 149 times and tails the last?
How about the chance of tossing 1 tail, 148 heads, and a tail?

Does Spentner list these 'requirments' of evolution that you have been so elusive about? It would probably be helpful if you listed those here. You've mentioned them in a few of your posts, but you never seem to be willing to share exactly what they are.

 

[notto]

Can you get to your math already Micaiah?

And perhaps apply it to an actual supposedly impossible situation such as the shared enymes of cows and monkeys.

All this talk of coins and cards is getting old. At least bring up the lottery.

 

[Lucretius]

I'm just waiting for his maths so I can show him where he messed up in the calculation…

With math there is no hiding! It is in the cold field of mathematics that his claim will meet its end!

 

[Phred]

Before we go any further with this nonsense let's clarify something. Human beings were not a target, we were not the end goal of evolution. We are the end product of evolution. So the odds of the "rolls of the dice" are irrelevant. The only way they'd matter is if you start with the desire to evolve yourself a human.

This, of course, is what creationists assume. They believe that humanity is the end goal and that's why they play this inane odds game. The only way any of this is impossible is if you make that assumption. However, the same magic that allows them to assume a goal for evolution also allows for an explanation. Never thought I'd say this but if you think evolution is impossible... goddidit.

 

[notto]

Perakh sums it up best.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm

If a certain event, A (for example a certain mutation) whose probability was calculated as 1/N did not actually happen, it only means that some other event B, whose probability was equally small, happened instead. Why could event B happen but the equally probable event A could not? From the standpoint of probability, there is no difference between all those N events, even if one of them is very special from some non-mathematical viewpoint (for example, being the spontaneous emergence of life).

 

[Micaiah]

Valkhorn and Notto,

The general method of the whole probability calculation associated with convergence was discussed in a previous thread:

The basic mathematical approach adopted by L. Spetner in his book "Not by Chance" is along these lines:

1. Determine the probability of a specific point mutation occurring that meets the requirements of NDT.

2. Determine the probability of that point mutation surviving and becoming fixed in the population.

3. Determine the number of viable point mutations needed to give a realistic probability of a single step of evolution occurring.

4. Assuming that number of point mutations, and the number of steps required for a change of species to occur, determine the number of possible paths for evolution to take.

5. Given that number of paths, what is the probability of convergence based on the number of convergent paths observed to exist in nature.

The initial discussion on convergence only focused on steps 4 and 5.

I have previously given a detailed overview of the calculation method for steps 1-3. It is posted again below.

I will start another thread to explain steps 1-3. The part that is easily overlooked is noted in step 3. Spetner spends a lot of his time talking about the probability of a sequence of point mutations occurring assuming one 'adaptive' mutation at each step. He notes that this is optimistic, since we have no examples in nature where information is added to the DNA in the way the NDT requires. He substantiated this with discussion on the examples that scientists at the time were claiming as evolution. He stands by that claim today as far as I know. He has defined information and information gain mathematically.

Having made the initial assumption that evolution could proceed if one adaptive mutation occurred at a specified site, Spetner determines the probability of this occurring for one step, and then for the estimated number of steps required for the trait to evolve. This probability calculation takes into consideration the size of the animal population, the mutation frequency, and the chance of a mutation surviving. The numbers involved are very small. For the hypothesised evolution of the horse used as an example by Spetner, the chance of it evolving is 2.7 x 10^-2739.
(pg 103).

He then deals with the objection some on this forum have raised that there could have been a number of possible adaptive mutations that occurred at the same time. Why do we have to restrict ourselves to the assumption there has to be one point mutation at a specific site for evolution to occur. Recall Spetner has said we don't know of any point mutations that are 'adaptive'. But he then assumes the possibility of multiple point mutations and poses the question how many you need for evolution to become 'possible' in the calculation. That number happened to be 1,000,000 for each step of evolution.

Now we are back to where our discussion started at steps 4. and 5. We know from the estimate that there are 1,000,000 possible paths at each step for evolution to be possible. From this we can estimate the total number of possible paths, and hence the probability of convergence.

This current thread is an attempt to explain steps 1 to 3. To start off with, I want to focus on the parameters and assumptions of the calculation. I will list each of these for your comment and discussion over the coming days.

To continue to claim that natural selection is not included in the calculation would only serve to demonstrate personal ignorance and prejudice, and a lack of regard for the 'scientific method'.

 

[perplexed]

Parameter 1.

The chance of an event considered by most people to be impossible is 1 in 10^45. That is the chance of tossing 150 coins and each giving a head.

Impossible means a 0% chance of happening not a ridiculously small chance of happening. You would be hard pressed to find someone who knew what 10^45 meant and not be able to say "not possible" means "probability 0"

 

[mikeynov]

Parameter 1.

The chance of an event considered by most people to be impossible is 1 in 10^45. That is the chance of tossing 150 coins and each giving a head.

To make this as clear as possible, and to force you to answer it:

Calculate the odds of getting any specific permutation of numbers when rolling a 6 sided die - let's say you do that 10,000 times.

What are the odds, at the end of that sequence, of getting the SPECIFIC sequence you got?

Please show your work. Seriously.

Afterwards, explain how you managed to get that sequence since it violates the very first rule you lay out here.