Does evolution have a chance?

[theFijian]

This indicates that some things are very unlikely to happen. If the probability of it happening is low enough we can say it is impossible.

improbable != impossible

Surely you can do better than that.

 

[Micaiah]

I turn over a pack of card that I claim was shuffles. It starts with the ace of spades, and all the spades in consecutive order ie. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K, then the same order with clubs, and hearts and finally diamonds. The pack is laid out in from on me in perfect order.

1. What is the probability of this happening?
2. Would you believe that this was a random deal?
3. How low would the probability have to be before you would conclude that an event such as this was not the result of random chance.

 

[notto]

1. What is the probability of this happening?

The same as any other order of the deck.

Go ahead and pick an order, even at random. Now, shuffle the cards. If it came up in the order you selected, what were the odds? The same as your example.

 

[Tomk80]

I turn over a pack of card that I claim was shuffles. It starts with the ace of spades, and all the spades in consecutive order ie. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K, then the same order with clubs, and hearts and finally diamonds. The pack is laid out in from on me in perfect order.

1. What is the probability of this happening?

Exactly the same as any other specific order.

2. Would you believe that this was a random deal?

Nope. But that doesn't negate that it could be.

3. How low would the probability have to be before you would conclude that an event such as this was not the result of random chance.

0. In the above, I would conclude that it probably was not a random deal. I cannot say such with certainty.


But evolution also has very little to do with probabilities, because there is selection involved. This makes it not completely random. Furthermore, abiogenesis has even less to do with probabilities, as that is chemistry, and certain reactions have a probability of 1 of occurring in the right circumstances.

What you also have to take into account, and what I have never seen taken into account in these calculations, is 'search space'. Apparantly, life has evolved the way it did in the past to the point where it is now. But that does not mean that this is the only possible outcome. Evolution might have taken a different turn in the past, so that everything would have ended up different from what it is now. To calculate the probability of evolution occurring, you need to calculate the sum of the probability of all possible outcomes. Not just the single probability of the current outcome.

Consider this. I could calculate the chances of me being born, the same way that I can calculate the probability of evolution giving the specific outcome it has given. To do that, I would calculate the number of expected ovulations my mother has had till I was born, multiply it by the number of expected sperm cells that would have been produced by the time I came into existance and multiply those same number for all my ancestors. I could also take into account the chance that my mother and father met each other, and do the same for their mother and father and so on. This give a probability which will be very, very small. Can I know conclude that reproduction does not exist? Or that I cannot exist? The same holds for evolution.

 

[Darth Incontinence]

Real Australians don't accept loony scientific theories just because they are popular.

Correct. Real Australians accept scientific theories because of their evidential support and explanatory power.

Stop lying for God. He hates that.

 

[Micaiah]

The answer is 100%. According to PubMed, every human has an average of 156 mutations already, just at the point of conception, and these compile as the individual grows. This degree of divergence is what keeps siblings from being identical. Every individual born bares mutations that can or could influence the population eventually.

"New variance comes from mutations at a rate approximately 10-2 to 10-4 VE per generation. VM should be equal to 2nua2, where n is the number of genes which can mutate to have effect on the trait, u is the per locus mutation rate, and a is the effect of the mutation. We can estimate nu from mutation accumulation experiments (like Mukai 1972). For viability, nu is in the range 0.1 to 1. This means that either the mutation rate is extremely high, or there are many loci which mutate to affect viability."
--Quantitive Genetics; Dept. Zoology, University of British Columbia

Thankyou for the quote. Mutations do occur in the human genome, so in one sense I agree with you that the probability is 100 % that a mutation will occur.

Allow me to rephrase question 1:

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

With regard to mutation rates mentioned above, some further things should be kept in mind. The type of mutation needs to be compatible with NDT. Also, we know that after replication the DNA is checked for copying errors. This substantially reduces the incidence of copying errors. The rates you gave seem far too high and I suspect do not meet the requirements of the first question posed.

As has already been explained, that would be meaningless. Every week, someone wins a lottery despite staggering odds. Alternatively, how probable is magic?

Not true in this context.

Remember that the Torah, the gospels, the Qu'ran, the Adi-Granth, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas, the Avestas, and the book of Mormon -are each claimed by millions to be the "absolute truth", and the "revealed word" of the "one true god". Now think about your probabilities for a moment. Which is more probable? That all of these conflicting religious doctrines are indeed what they claim to be? Or that all of them are inaccurate? Because the least probable position I can imagine is that all of these are absolutely wrong -except one, and that one is absolutely without error of any kind. That is a statistical impossibility given the circumstances.
Do you want those to be just from our own species?

The existence of error is evidence for the truth, not that the truth does not exist.

In the Italian village of Limone sul Garda, there is a family with a mutation related to their HDL cholesterol which made them insusceptible to heart failure, despite their high-risk diet and lifestyle. This family is now being genetically-sampled in the hopes of treating heart disease.

Another example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation (Jensen, R. H., S. Zhang, et al. (1997) which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolongued periods at altitudes of 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or “altitude sickness”. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/204/18/3151

Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and American Indians. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless (or neutral) in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature; if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant (if not immune) to AIDS.
(source: Science-Frontiers.com / PBS.org)

For another example, we’ve also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4128183,00.html

There’s also a family in Germany who are already unusually strong. But in one case, a child was born with a double copy of an anti-myostatin mutation carried by both parents. The result is a herculian kiddo who was examined at only a few days old for his unusually well-developed muscles. By four years old, he had twice the mucle mass of normal children, and half the fat. Pharmaceutical synthesis of this mutation is being examined for potential use against muscular dystrophy or sarcopenia.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2004/06/24/512617.html

There is also a family in Connecticut that has been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones:

“Members of this family carry a genetic mutation that causes high bone density. They have a deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genetics, along with Karl L. Insogna, M.D., professor of medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, and colleagues, traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. In the recent study, the Yale team mapped the family’s genetic mutation to the same chromosome segment in LRP5. “It made us wonder if a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density,” Lifton said.
Family members, according to the investigators, have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the 2000 movie Unbreakable. “If there are living counterparts to the [hero] in Unbreakable, who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, they’re members of this family,” said Lifton. “They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. These people have about the strongest bones on the entire planet.”
http://info.med.yale.edu/external/pubs/ym_au02/findings.html

Do these satisfy your request? Or is your faith of the type which decides in advance that no amount of evidence or reason will ever cause you to question the absolute accuracy of your preconceived notions?
No it doesn't. Whoever told you otherwise was either ignorant or trying to deceive you deliberately.

I had a look at your first example, and note it states the following:

On the basis of less contentious evidence, 12000 years ago seems to be a reasonable estimate of the earliest substantial human activity on the altiplano, although whether these people were the direct antecedents of the current indigenous populations is unknown. This duration is an important parameter in considering the role of evolution in these populations as it establishes the time frame over which evolutionary changes would have had to occur.

The author then states:

It is unlikely that genetic adaptation has occurred in Andean populations as a result of the generation and promulgation of new alleles over the last 12000 years. The mutation frequency in humans is approximately 10-6 per meiosis per gene, and the probability of a beneficial variant arising is much lower. Furthermore, unless the interbreeding population was quite small, any new allele would have to confer a considerable advantage to avoid being eliminated by genetic drift (the stochastic variation of allele frequencies within a population) within the first few generations and, as there is no evidence for a unique and extremely adapted phenotype in human high-altitude populations, this scenario seems unlikely. However, the appearance of new alleles is not a prerequisite for adaptation. There is substantial genetic variability in humans. Extensive sequencing of the human genome indicates that between two people, on average, there is a single nucleotide polymorphism every thousand bases, or approximately 3 million per genome (Bentley, 2000). By convention, a polymorphic locus has at least two variants that are present in more than 1% of the population (Sunyaev et al., 2000). While most variants are silent and do not affect the coding or regulatory sequences of genes, many have associated phenotypes and thus contribute to human phenotypic variability.

In other words he does not believe that this is a candidate to use as an example of NDT. I also note that the mutation rate during meiosis mentioned is much higher that the rate stated above. In commenting on this point in his book "Not by Chance", Dr Lee Spetner notes that in mammals rate of copying errors is about 1 in 10,000,000,000.

 

[Lucretius]

The problem with Creationists and probability is that they do the following:

1)Take the smallest organism and the biggest organism and then see what the odds of one going straight to the other is.

2)They assume the universe had human beings in mind when it began.

3)They don't realise that probability does not affect something happening or not. It just gives a likelihood.

4)Sometimes probability can be manipulated by adding in lots of factors until some given probability becomes [basically] zero.

 

[Micaiah]

The problem with evolutionists is that they think that if something is even remotely probable, then it probably did happen.

 

[mikeynov]

The problem with evolutionists is that they think that if something is even remotely probable, then it probably did happen.

The problem with creationists is that they are totally incapable of addressing real evidence.

Feel free to start with ERV's and why this isn't devastating evidence that you and chimps share common ancestry.

 

[Lucretius]

The problem with evolutionists is that they think that if something is even remotely probable, then it probably did happen.

An incorrect statement Micaiah. There is plenty of evidence that life was not on this planet and then it was. The most obvious scientific explanation is one that involves the process that is logically derived from observing lifeforms on this planet. Chemicals evolve too, you know. It's not the same evolution as in the Theory of Evolution, but nonetheless, evolution in the laymen term does occur.

Abiogenesis is still a relatively new field, newer than Quantum Mechanics and Evolution. The first evidence that life could have formed from simple chemicals came in the Miller-Urey experiment.

I would suggest reading up about the RNA-World hypothesis [among other Abiogenesis theories] before you quibble on probability. The odds are quite in favor of an origin from simple chemicals.

 

[perplexed]

I disagree with everyone here

I disagree with Micaiah because his quoted probabilities are wrong.

I disagree with Micaiahs opponents because they are talking about throwing dice
a million times and observing an event that was very unlikely before the dice was thrown (1/6)^1000000. This is not relevant. If the probability of a beneficial mutation is small enough the claim that all the species came about from a series of beneficial mutations becomes dubious.

 

[Illuminatus]

They're alright, since they're pretty countable. Personally, though, I prefer R, since they keep it real.

*rimshot*

 

[vipertaja]

If the probability of a beneficial mutation is small enough the claim that all the species came about from a series of beneficial mutations becomes dubious.

The probability leading all the way up to you being born is so ridiculously small your existance becomes dubious.

 

[ebia]

I hope they don't drink Fosters either. It's almost as bad as American beer.

Nah. Australians won't touch Fosters with barge pole. They drink VB, which is exactly the same stuff but with fractionally more hop extract, while slagging off Fosters. Ah, the wonders of CUB advertising.

Unless they are in NSW or WA, in which case they drink almost identical stuff with a different label. Or SA where they actually have good beer (Coopers).

 

[Nightson]

The probability leading all the way up to you being born is so ridiculously small your existance becomes dubious.

And just consider how likely it is that each and every person would happen to be born, the odds are impossible. There's no way the human race can possibly exist.

 

[Micaiah]

I disagree with everyone here

I disagree with Micaiah because his quoted probabilities are wrong.

I disagree with Micaiahs opponents because they are talking about throwing dice
a million times and observing an event that was very unlikely before the dice was thrown (1/6)^1000000. This is not relevant. If the probability of a beneficial mutation is small enough the claim that all the species came about from a series of beneficial mutations becomes dubious.

Sounding very disagreeable. Show me where my maths are wrong and feel free to post the correct probabilities. You could also demonstrate your mathematical prowess by working out the probability of the deck of cards I mentioned above.

 

[Micaiah]

And just consider how likely it is that each and every person would happen to be born, the odds are impossible. There's no way the human race can possibly exist.

Is is silly to try to draw a comparison between the probablity of the birth of a child and evolution.

 

[L'Anatra]

Is is silly to try to draw a comparison between the probablity of the birth of a child and evolution.

Why?

 

[perplexed]

I still disagree with everyone

Michaiah there is simply no way to calculate the probability of a species evolving to a different kind.

Everyone else is talking about the chance of being born being low. This is in no way disputes my statement that evolution is not connected to the outcome of throwing a million dice having a probability of (1/6)^1000000. "The low chance of being born argument" is identical to the "low chance of getting a specific outcome when you throw million dice argument". Both these arguments are not valid unless you adopt the position any future evolution is very unlikely.

 

[Nightson]

Both these arguments are not valid unless you adopt the position any future evolution is very unlikely.

Not quite, it means that the future evolution is unknown. In the same way that we can't know the roll of the dice beforehand, and the dice will still produce a result. When we look back we may see something that seems very improbable, but there are two things to consider. First, the mere fact that the event obviously did occur either means it is not as unlikely as we would believe, or that it was simply improbable. Secondly, we don't know what the other results would have been, if the dice some out 6, 6, 3, 2, 1, 5, 4, 3 that's the same probablility as any other outcome, and looking back it's easy to say that it's improbable (1 to 1,679,616 I think) but it's just as probable as any other outcome, and we do not know what would happen with any other outcome, if every possible outcome of the dice would produce the desired result then the chance of the event is 100%, if half of them would 50%. But we cannot know the consequnces of different results, therefore we cannot know the actual likelihood of the event occuring, only the probablility of it occuring the way it did (if even that).

Also, watch out for analogies comparing inanimate objects like dice, to animate things upon which evolution acts, they may be helpful to illustrate one point, but they aren't really applicable.