Does evolution have a chance?

[USincognito]

If you are saying that there is evidence in DNA that when a random mutation occurs that it results in a scrambled mess then I agree.

No. And thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

I won't do the same to you, but I will ask if you agree that DNA is not perfectly ordered as in your A,K,Q,J,10,9, etc. analogy?

 

[Micaiah]

No. And thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

I won't do the same to you, but I will ask if you agree that DNA is not perfectly ordered as in your A,K,Q,J,10,9, etc. analogy?

The analogy was used to give people a concept of the numbers involved. One of the problems in discussing the topic of evolution and chance is people tend to think that if it can possibly happen, then it will. So even if the chance is 1 in 10^3000, then it can happen. That is not the case. Examples such as the one given do give an intuitive sense of the likelihood involved in some of the events discussed.

Also, when discussing evolution in a quantitative sense, it wasn't related to the number of base pairs in the DNA. Have a look back over the thread to have this confirmed. No YEC with any undestanding of the subject claims that the DNA is perfectly ordered.

The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned on the function of junk DNA. It wasn't that long ago they were pulling out tonsils saying they didn't have an important function. It is clear that some mutations are random and these often have a negative affect on the organism. A scrambled gene is hardly a case for evolution. If entropy in information theory means anything, it means that enough of these random events will cause a towards a maximum state of disorder.

 

[Jet Black]

If you are saying that there is evidence in DNA that when a random mutation occurs that it results in a scrambled mess then I agree.

if it is just a scrambled mess, then how come that scrambled mess lines up so well with other species?

 

[Micaiah]

if it is just a scrambled mess, then how come that scrambled mess lines up so well with other species?

Because God created them. Hey, remember you are talking to a YEC.

 

[Jet Black]

God created a scrambled mess? well it's your God I suppose.

 

[USincognito]

The analogy was used to give people a concept of the numbers involved.

Right. But I was just pointing out that using a flawed analogy to make a flawed argument is doubly incorrect.

One of the problems in discussing the topic of evolution and chance...

Can you please keep on topic. You're trying to discuss abiogenesis and universal common descent from an abiogenetic event. Evolutionary theory includes so-called microevolution which virtually every Creationist accepts these days, and most accept a limited version of macroevolution as long as they limit it to within amorphous "kinds."

...is people tend to think that if it can possibly happen, then it will. So even if the chance is 1 in 10^3000, then it can happen. That is not the case. Examples such as the one given do give an intuitive sense of the likelihood involved in some of the events discussed.

I hesitate to point this out because so many Creationists are betting people (they love calculating odds), but all these numbers don't matter because we're talking about something that has already occured. The odds of Creationists or Evolutionary theory being correct are both 1 in 3. The third possibility being another way that neither side embraces.

Basically all this oddsmaking is a red herring because it diverts from the actual evidence... and that's why Creationists love it so much.

Also, when discussing evolution in a quantitative sense, it wasn't related to the number of base pairs in the DNA. Have a look back over the thread to have this confirmed. No YEC with any undestanding of the subject claims that the DNA is perfectly ordered.

They why did you use a "prefectly ordered" sequence as your analogy? Why do many Creationists talk about how perfect DNA is (right before noting it's flawed nature due to the Fall)? And how does one discuss evolution in a quantitative sense? I would think that would imply actual analyses of specific datum like ERV insertions and mophological comparisons of fossils rather pie in the sky allusions to Roulette wheels?

The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned on the function of junk DNA. It wasn't that long ago they were pulling out tonsils saying they didn't have an important function.

Tonsils and the appendix and junk DNA are not analogous. We still remove tonsils when they are a constant source of infection, and hence flawed and not serving any other purpose than to make their owner sick.

If entropy in information theory means anything...

It doesn't because information theory applies to telephony within the context you're using it, not genetics. That's been explained far too often around here for people to continue making the same mistake.

 

[Micaiah]

Can you please keep on topic. You're trying to discuss abiogenesis and universal common descent from an abiogenetic event. Evolutionary theory includes so-called microevolution which virtually every Creationist accepts these days, and most accept a limited version of macroevolution as long as they limit it to within amorphous "kinds."

Calculating the odds of common descent has nothing to do with abiogeneis. I'm surprised you make that mistake. Attempts at calculating the odds have been made by both sides of the debate. Convergence is only one aspect. Not considered in detail in this thread are the chances of a point mutation occurring and then the chance of that point mutation surviving and becoming fixed in the population.

I hesitate to point this out because so many Creationists are betting people (they love calculating odds), but all these numbers don't matter because we're talking about something that has already occurred. The odds of Creationists or Evolutionary theory being correct are both 1 in 3. The third possibility being another way that neither side embraces.

Basically all this oddsmaking is a red herring because it diverts from the actual evidence... and that's why Creationists love it so much.

The claim that since we exist, the chance of us evolving is 1 is a neat one liner but shows a simplistic understanding of what is entailed in the calculation.

Analogies are always limited, but here is one. I don't know how probabilities compare. I'm trying to demonstrate that chance doesn't imply an outcome must occur.

A blind man is called upon to draw a one billion dollar lotto. He will pull out a lottery ticket from the barrel, and then try to find the house of the owner of the lottery ticket within a certain time. What is the chance of you winning the lottery ticket.

To calcualte this probability there are two parts. First, there is the chance of your name being drawn from the hat. The blind lottery master has to find his way to your house. Just because their is a chance someone may get the lottery doesn't mean it will happen. I wouldn't like to be the person marketing the lottery.

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.

In this thread we have confined our discussions to steps 4 and 5 of the calculation.

 

[vipertaja]

The claim that since we exist, the chance of us evolving is 1 is a neat one liner but shows a simplistic understanding of what is entailed in the calculation.

How can the chance not be 1 if it is already confirmed that we exist?
Are you saying that we exist in this form because we evolved into something
else? Your point would be valid I think if the result was not confirmed.
However going as we are from the point that we are here now then the odds
of events leading up to us has to be true, right?

If I won the lottery then the odds of me having won it should be 1, no?

 

[Micaiah]

How can the chance not be 1 if it is already confirmed that we exist?
Are you saying that we exist in this form because we evolved into something
else? Your point would be valid I think if the result was not confirmed.
However going as we are from the point that we are here now then the odds
of events leading up to us has to be true, right?

If I won the lottery then the odds of me having won it should be 1, no?

If evolution is impossible and we exist, that would mean we didn't evolve.

 

[Tomk80]

If evolution is impossible and we exist, that would mean we didn't evolve.

But evolution is not impossible. And I have not seen one chance argument which would lead to any other conclusion than that the chances either cannot be calculated or are calculated incorrectly.

 

[Micaiah]

Two possibilities.

1. You undestand the argument and recognise where it is wrong.
2. You don't understand the argument, but decide it is wrong anyway.

So far there is no evidence for 1.

 

[vipertaja]

If evolution is impossible and we exist, that would mean we didn't evolve.

Ah. I assumed this wasn't in the argument. Ok.
The problem here is again the thing I even started a thread on.
Small odds and impossibility have nothing to do with each other.
If something is improbable then it can't be impossible to begin with.
Therefore you should concentrate on arguing that it's IMPOSSIBLE,
not IMPROBABLE. Then again, with your ultimate explanation...IE
"goddidit" you'd assume everything is possible as you have often
implied. Seems you are being a bit self contradicting there.

 

[Alchemist]

Some questions to consider previously posted and substantially unanswered:

1. What is the probability of a mutation occuring in the haploid that meets the requirements of the Neo Darwinian thoery of evolution (the most common theory in vogue).

2. Provide an explanation of the probability calculation including any important assumptions about randomness.

3. Provide examples of mutations that meet the NDT requirements and can be considered candidates for evolution. Remember that evolution assumes a net gain in genetic information over time.

Well, according to theistic evolution, God is the one implementing and sustaining the laws of nature by which evolution can occur. So if God is indeed infinite, and can achieve anything, your questions are irrelevant really . God doesn't need probability trees.

Peace,
Nick

 

[Tomk80]

Two possibilities.

1. You undestand the argument and recognise where it is wrong.
2. You don't understand the argument, but decide it is wrong anyway.

So far there is no evidence for 1.

I have responded to several of your posts here, and I though to both arguments on chance that have been put forward regarding evolution. The first being (summarized):

The chance of a particular genetic sequence is incredible. Hence evolution is improbable. This is the structure of argument that is also put forward by people like Dembski. The problem with the argument is that, while the chance of that particular genetic sequence occurring is indeed incredibly low, there is no reason why it should have occurred in stead of any other sequence. It completely ignores search space, and hence cannot make any comments of worth regarding evolution.

The second:
The chance of a beneficial mutation is too small for evolution to occur. The problem with this argument is how we calculate the chances of a beneficial mutation. Only the here and now is not enough for that. Selection pressures play a big role in the determination of what a beneficial is or isn't. I see no way to reliably incorporate selection pressures in any calculation on which part of the mutations is beneficial. I have not been presented with any credible way in this thread (although I'm certainly open to possibilities). Hence I see no merit in this argument.


If you have any objections to either of these arguments, please give them. If you have another chance argument which does have any merit, please present it.

 

[Jet Black]

A blind man is called upon to draw a one billion dollar lotto. He will pull out a lottery ticket from the barrel, and then try to find the house of the owner of the lottery ticket within a certain time. What is the chance of you winning the lottery ticket.

that is a specific outcome you are looking for. who is saying that there is a specific outcome to evolution. Look at it this way, a blind man draws a name from a barrel and then finds a house and gives it to that person, who wins. Along comes Dr Spotner, the creationist, who determines that person could not win, because there are 6 billion people on the planet and the odds of that person winning are almost zero.

To calcualte this probability there are two parts. First, there is the chance of your name being drawn from the hat. The blind lottery master has to find his way to your house. Just because their is a chance someone may get the lottery doesn't mean it will happen. I wouldn't like to be the person marketing the lottery.

why on earth is this an analogy to evolution? Can you pair the representative parts of the analogy with the real case?

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

I asked you to tell us what you mean by this earlier, and you didn't, you just asked us to, which is rather strange. Regardless of the issue that you are not at all clear about the meaning of "meets the requirements of NDT", you are still facing a large problem, you are trying to explain the odds of a specific mutation surviving. well that is very low, but so what? there are lots of mutations. all different, with different phenotypical effects.

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

again, why a specific mutation? It is also incdedibly dependent upon the environment.

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

This is a highly suspect question, since there are lots of sorts of mutations that are being ignored, and the fact that lots of mutations occur is ignored, and this "single step of evolution" again is incredibly vague.

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.

Now you have a calculation based upon garbage numbers: the requirement for only analysing single point mutations is arbitrary and unjustified. The calculation ignores the fact that there may be large numbers of several different sorts of mutation, all of which may increase the fitness of the organism in some way or just remain neutral and become embedded within the population, to have their increased fitness realised at a later date when the environment changes. The terminology leading to the calculation is vague. what is meant by "a single step of evolution" - evolution is not quantum in nature.

You have put garbage numbers into the equation, all you are going to get is garbage out.

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

convergence in this sense is poorly defined. Given that the context of the rest of the question regards convergence of an exact sequence of DNA, do any cases exist within nature where convergence of two exact DNA sequences is the only available option?

In this thread we have confined our discussions to steps 4 and 5 of the calculation.

It's a junk calculation. you're only going to get crap out of it.

 

[Micaiah]

that is a specific outcome you are looking for. who is saying that there is a specific outcome to evolution. Look at it this way, a blind man draws a name from a barrel and then finds a house and gives it to that person, who wins. Along comes Dr Spotner, the creationist, who determines that person could not win, because there are 6 billion people on the planet and the odds of that person winning are almost zero.

Refer to point 3. You obviously haven't given this much thought before responding.

why on earth is this an analogy to evolution? Can you pair the representative parts of the analogy with the real case?

The analogy shows that the outcome is not inevitable, and if low enough is what we consider impossible.

I asked you to tell us what you mean by this earlier, and you didn't, you just asked us to, which is rather strange. Regardless of the issue that you are not at all clear about the meaning of "meets the requirements of NDT", you are still facing a large problem, you are trying to explain the odds of a specific mutation surviving. well that is very low, but so what? there are lots of mutations. all different, with different phenotypical effects.

NDT requirements have been posted elsewhere if not here on several occasions. You should know them as one who argues strongly for common descent.

again, why a specific mutation? It is also incdedibly dependent upon the environment.

Refer to point 3.

This is a highly suspect question, since there are lots of sorts of mutations that are being ignored, and the fact that lots of mutations occur is ignored, and this "single step of evolution" again is incredibly vague.

Like what?

Now you have a calculation based upon garbage numbers: the requirement for only analysing single point mutations is arbitrary and unjustified. The calculation ignores the fact that there may be large numbers of several different sorts of mutation, all of which may increase the fitness of the organism in some way or just remain neutral and become embedded within the population, to have their increased fitness realised at a later date when the environment changes. The terminology leading to the calculation is vague. what is meant by "a single step of evolution" - evolution is not quantum in nature.

Examples of this would be nice. We can discuss it in another thread if you wish.

You have put garbage numbers into the equation, all you are going to get is garbage out.

You haven't shown this adequately.

convergence in this sense is poorly defined. Given that the context of the rest of the question regards convergence of an exact sequence of DNA, do any cases exist within nature where convergence of two exact DNA sequences is the only available option?

Convergence is not that cut and dried. It can be defined in terms of similar DNA (similar genotypes), and similar physical characteristics (similar phenotypes)

It is easy to mouth and dismiss something you don't fully understand. I probably haven't explained it as well as I could and do not understand it as well as I should.

The fundamental tenets of the modern synthetic theory of evolution was hammered out around the mid 20th century by men such as Fisher, Stebbins, Wright, Theodosius, Dobzhansky Mayr, Fisher, Wright, Simpson, Jepsen and Huxley.

When you make a comment like

It's a junk calculation. you're only going to get crap out of it.

it is an indirect reference to the work of some of these people since Spetner makes extensive reference to their work in his calculations. While I have a lot of sympathy for your description with reference to the theory of evolution, I'm not sure that is what you intended. Since you have to be told some of the most basic tenets of the modern theory I assume your comments are made out of ignorance. And ignorance breeds arrogance.

 

[Tomk80]

Since you have to be told some of the most basic tenets of the modern theory I assume your comments are made out of ignorance. And ignorance breeds arrogance.

There goes my irony meter specially tuned to withstand the high levels of irony present at Christian Forums.

 

[Micaiah]

I can give you a good manufacturer. Mine is rated to withstand a nuclear explosion.

 

[Alchemist]

The analogy shows that the outcome is not inevitable, and if low enough is what we consider impossible.

Wrong. Even if there is only a 1 in 10^100 chance of an event happening, it is not impossible.

That is why your argument is invalid. You are stating that because the probability of evolution is very low, it is impossible. But that is not true; only an event with a probability of zero is impossible. Every other event, no matter how close to zero its probability, is possible.

 

[Micaiah]

Wrong. Even if there is only a 1 in 10^100 chance of an event happening, it is not impossible.

That is why your argument is invalid. You are stating that because the probability of evolution is very low, it is impossible. But that is not true; only an event with a probability of zero is impossible. Every other event, no matter how close to zero its probability, is possible.

I posted this on another thread in an attemp to help peopel grasp the probabilities we're talking about.

Work out the number of throws in a row giving a specified number, say 6, to give the odds of 1 in 10^3000, which was the probability worked out in the previous thread for evolution of the wing to occur independently twice.

1 throw has a probability of 1 in 6.
2 throws have odds of 1 in 6^2
.
.
.
n throws have odds of 1 in 6^n

Hence 6^n=10^3000.

n log 6 = 3000 log 10

n = 3855

So the chance of this happening is the same as throwing 3855 sixes in a row
How long does it take to roll a dice? Lets say I takes 5 seconds. We have a person that can do this non stop for as long as you like. How long would it take this person the roll the dice to be sure they were able to get 3855 sixes in a row.

If it takes 5 seconds to throw a dice, you could throw it 3855 times in

3,855 x 5 = 19,275 secs = 5.4 hours.

How many sets of the 3855 rolls will I need. Since the probability I'm trying to model is 1 in 6^3855, I need to roll 6^3855 sets.

How long is that going to take? It will take 5.4 hrs x 6^3855 = a number too big for my calculator.

Change to base 10.

10^x = 5.4, so x = log 5.4 / log 10 = 0.732

And 10^0.732 x 10^3000 = 10^3000.732 hrs

I now need to throw the dice continuously for that period of time. How many years is this.

1 year is 24 x 365 = 8760 hrs = 10^3.9 hrs

10 years = 87,600 hrs = 10^4.9 hrs
100 years = 876,000 = 10^5.9 hrs
1000 years = 8,760,000 hrs = 10^6.9 hrs

This is getting boring. Lets go for a million years

1,000,000 = 8,760,000,000 hrs = 10^9.9 hrs

A billion years

1,000,000,000 = 8,760,000,000,000 = 10^12.9 hrs

Notice how slowly the index is changing.

Remember I need to get to 10^3000.732 hrs

How about a billion billion years

1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 8,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 hrs = 10^21.9 hrs

I just remembered. The universe is only about 14 billion years old ie. 14,000,000,000 years. I ran out of time and am no where near the number of throw I need to be sure that I get the desired outcome.

The number of years required is going to be:

10^3000.732 / 10^3.94 = 10^(3000.732-3.94) = 10^2997 approximately.

I will show this number in the window below.