Probability and evolution from natural causes

[Speedwell]

So why do you suppose that many (most) believed so dogmatically in a common ancestor BEFORE genetics really became available? IYO what other line of evidence did they depend on to claim it as a fact?

Because it is a reasonable inference from the branching nature of evolutionary diversification. Scientists fully understand the epistemological status of that hypothesis. My surmise would be that it only seems "dogmatic" to creationists because of the general consensus that biblical special creation is hogwash.

 

[tas8831]

Use your mind free of what you have been taught for just a moment.

If a protein molecule composed of nearly 300 amino acids, linked specifically in chain form, that are arranged into over 10,000 possible combinations, the odds of it occurring just once would be around 1 in 10 with 300 zeros following it. To many this seems to imply it could RARELY have happened in a Universe even 20 billion years old let alone one only planet that is only 13.5 billion, but apparently it is alleged that this is exactly what happened. But where’s the beef? It could happen but that would not explain how many times it would have to have happened over and over displaying such a wide variety of consistently repeating patterns in each respective life form or species.

After years of experimentation and research Professor Harold Blum finally admitted that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968, pg 158 on). Yet Professor Blum being an Evolutionist insists it must have. But based on what? (please understand this is a great work, and actually supports evolution. He is just honest about this one dilemma)
....

You are very fond of this archived post of yours, but I have a question - did you read Blum's book? I admit I have not, since having been written in 1968 - 50+ years ago - I see little reason to make that investment.

I did, however, try to google the quote you provided, to see what had been banished by ellipses (and to see what the next sentence was), and only came up with your usages of it.
So, i pared it down, googled parts of it, and finally found the quote. From other creationist sources.

From here, for example - we see the quote, sans ellipses:

"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known protein seems beyond all probability." (Blum, 1968, p.158)


So, where did you get your quote? Which creationist source is inaccurate?

My university does not have an electronic version, but I may meander over and see just what is on p.158.

 

[Halbhh]

You are very fond of this archived post of yours, but I have a question - did you read Blum's book? I admit I have not, since having been written in 1968 - 50+ years ago - I see little reason to make that investment.

I did, however, try to google the quote you provided, to see what had been banished by ellipses (and to see what the next sentence was), and only came up with your usages of it.
So, i pared it down, googled parts of it, and finally found the quote. From other creationist sources.

From here, for example - we see the quote, sans ellipses:

"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known protein seems beyond all probability." (Blum, 1968, p.158)


So, where did you get your quote? Which creationist source is inaccurate?

My university does not have an electronic version, but I may meander over and see just what is on p.158.

Can I presume you are merely discussing the small details about how God created, which we don't know for sure, small details which are nowhere suggested in any manner in our Bible?

For instance, one possibility of many I could think of just without effort is God decides to send a lightning bolt to just the right pond at just the right moment, to create a self-replicating molecule.

But see, that's merely one way of dozens of plausible ways He might have initiated life. It matters 0% to most people of course if it was one way vs another way, in those small details.

 

[tas8831]

Sorry many Ph.Ds have done the math. It is intentionally ignored.

There was a fellow active on many forums a few years back, a retired actuary. He declared that he had proven evolution false by using actuarial math. After much prodding, he finally provided his evolution-disproving equations and the values that he had plugged into this series of equations. The values he had used were ridiculous - for example, for one variable he had declared that since an average gene is 1500 bps long, we should see 1500 alleles per gene, and since we do not, this was a strike against evolution. Nearly all of his variables were similarly idiotically derived.
When people that understood the issues explained to him his errors, he angrily (and condescendingly) wrote that we were all "arguing against well established mathematical principles." Many explained that the algebra was fine, it was the values he was using that screwed it all up. Nope - to him, anyone daring to disagree was arguing against proven math!

And yes you can use this interpretation of what we see in the genes as support for the pre-supposed conclusion that was accepted and taught as truth since Darwin.

I think you mean concluded already on far less rigorous evidence? Presuppositions are things like 'the bible is 100% true from cover to cover no matter what' or 'I KNOW God is real.'

That does not mean the conclusion has been successfully demonstrated...it means it is already believed before one interprets (expectancy and confirmation bias take place...which are subconscious not intentional)

Surely, in your decades of scientific inquiry, you have run across the definition of Projection?

 

[tas8831]

Can I presume you are merely discussing the small details about how God created, which we don't know for sure, small details which are nowhere suggested in any manner in our Bible?

For instance, one possibility of many I could think of just without effort is God decides to send a lightning bolt to just the right pond at just the right moment, to create a self-replicating molecule.

But see, that's merely one way of dozens of plausible ways He might have initiated life. It matters 0% to most people of course if it was one way vs another way, in those small details.

In reality, I am just curious as to where pshun got the quote, for it is different from another creationist's use of the same quote.

 

[sfs]

My university does not have an electronic version, but I may meander over and see just what is on p.158.

I do have access to an electronic version (thank you, Harvard), and the quotation is accurate: 'The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living systems are descended from a single protein molecule, which was formed as a "chance" act—a view that has been frequently entertained.'

I don't think many origin-of-life researchers today view the spontaneous formation of proteins in an aqueous solution as part of the process.

 

[tas8831]

I do have access to an electronic version (thank you, Harvard), and the quotation is accurate: 'The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living systems are descended from a single protein molecule, which was formed as a "chance" act—a view that has been frequently entertained.'

Saved me a trip! So one has to wonder where pshun got his inaccurate quote from?

“The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968, pg 158

Maybe 'seems impossible' shows up 2 chapters later....

I don't think many origin-of-life researchers today view the spontaneous formation of proteins in an aqueous solution as part of the process.

You mean Origins research has progressed in 50+ years? Shocking!

 

[pshun2404]

You are very fond of this archived post of yours, but I have a question - did you read Blum's book? I admit I have not, since having been written in 1968 - 50+ years ago - I see little reason to make that investment.

I did, however, try to google the quote you provided, to see what had been banished by ellipses (and to see what the next sentence was), and only came up with your usages of it.
So, i pared it down, googled parts of it, and finally found the quote. From other creationist sources.

From here, for example - we see the quote, sans ellipses:

"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known protein seems beyond all probability." (Blum, 1968, p.158)


So, where did you get your quote? Which creationist source is inaccurate?

My university does not have an electronic version, but I may meander over and see just what is on p.158.

Yes in 1974! Being a staunch agnostic at the time I had difficulty with this section and its implications but that would not sway me from my indoctrination. The book on the whole is intensely supportive of the ToE, very data based, but being honest about the questions proposed by probabilities is only indicative of his intellectual integrity. The fact that he and so many other's recognize this problem does not necessitate "creationist" websites (see the work of Sir Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe for example)...we find just as many ultra-darwinian propaganda sites putting forth their arguments against.

The problem I see is that neither extreme uses their brain nor exercises their intellectual integrity. They interpret through their lens. "Too old" is an absurd argument as a form of dismissal because those who make this claim will refer to older predecessors all the time as conveniently supports their view (it is an obvious double standard). And if "too old" is a legitimate consideration applied across the board then kick out the Human Genome project, and even Darwin (way too old), Einstein, Planck, Schroedinger, and all the rest. The same delusion is carried over into only accepting the opinions and journal entries of those who agree with their views (again, both extremes). Then we reject the insights provided by people from other fields, and so on and on, until they shrink the box of acceptability so that all you are left with is their view (in propaganda and rhetoric it is called stacking the deck which in any other application would be "CHEATING" which is a form of disonesty).

 

[Loudmouth]

Use your mind free of what you have been taught for just a moment.

If a protein molecule composed of nearly 300 amino acids, linked specifically in chain form, that are arranged into over 10,000 possible combinations, the odds of it occurring just once would be around 1 in 10 with 300 zeros following it.

That assumes that there is only a single 300 amino acid protein that can lead to life. Additionally, it assumes that proteins are even needed. It also assumes that there is only a single amino acid sequence for each function. For example, cytochrome c proteins can differ by 40% between species, and that is probably only the tip of the iceberg for the total variation of cytochrome c. On top of that, there is nothing requiring that life must evolve cytochrome c.

With probabilities based on such massive and unsupported assertions, they can be ignored.

After years of experimentation and research Professor Harold Blum finally admitted that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968, pg 158 on). Yet Professor Blum being an Evolutionist insists it must have. But based on what? (please understand this is a great work, and actually supports evolution. He is just honest about this one dilemma)

"Heavier than air flying craft are impossible."--Lord Kelvin, 1895

 

[xianghua]

That assumes that there is only a single 300 amino acid protein that can lead to life. Additionally, it assumes that proteins are even needed. It also assumes that there is only a single amino acid sequence for each function. For example, cytochrome c proteins can differ by 40% between species, and that is probably only the tip of the iceberg for the total variation of cytochrome c. On top of that, there is nothing requiring that life must evolve cytochrome c.

so how many sequences can by functional? 10^30? 10^50? what is the chance that every complex biological system is near other system in such a huge sequence space (20^300)?

 

[Loudmouth]

so how many sequences can by functional?

No one knows, which is why any claims of having calculated probabilities is a bunch of hogwash.

what is the chance that every complex biological system is near other system in such a huge sequence space (20^300)?

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

 

[pshun2404]

That assumes that there is only a single 300 amino acid protein that can lead to life. Additionally, it assumes that proteins are even needed. It also assumes that there is only a single amino acid sequence for each function. For example, cytochrome c proteins can differ by 40% between species, and that is probably only the tip of the iceberg for the total variation of cytochrome c. On top of that, there is nothing requiring that life must evolve cytochrome c.

With probabilities based on such massive and unsupported assertions, they can be ignored.

"Heavier than air flying craft are impossible."--Lord Kelvin, 1895

It assumes no such foolishness!

 

[Loudmouth]

It assumes no such foolishness!

Then what are the assumptions, and how are they justified?

 

[tas8831]

Yes in 1974! Being a staunch agnostic at the time I had difficulty with this section and its implications but that would not sway me from my indoctrination. The book on the whole is intensely supportive of the ToE, very data based, but being honest about the questions proposed by probabilities is only indicative of his intellectual integrity. The fact that he and so many other's recognize this problem does not necessitate "creationist" websites (see the work of Sir Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe for example)...we find just as many ultra-darwinian propaganda sites putting forth their arguments against.

The problem I see is that neither extreme uses their brain nor exercises their intellectual integrity. They interpret through their lens. "Too old" is an absurd argument as a form of dismissal because those who make this claim will refer to older predecessors all the time as conveniently supports their view (it is an obvious double standard). And if "too old" is a legitimate consideration applied across the board then kick out the Human Genome project, and even Darwin (way too old), Einstein, Planck, Schroedinger, and all the rest. The same delusion is carried over into only accepting the opinions and journal entries of those who agree with their views (again, both extremes). Then we reject the insights provided by people from other fields, and so on and on, until they shrink the box of acceptability so that all you are left with is their view (in propaganda and rhetoric it is called stacking the deck which in any other application would be "CHEATING" which is a form of disonesty).

Wow - your reputation is supported - unnecessarily verbose response not even dealing with the subject matter...

I guess I could simplify?

You quote Blum:

"“The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968, pg 158 on). "

Another creationist source quotes him:

""The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known protein seems beyond all probability." (Blum, 1968, p.158)"

A third party (sfs) confirms that the other source is accurate, yours contains ellipses and a different ending.



So, my initial question - which you totally sidestep - is moot, and my question now is:

Why did you doctor the quote?

If you did not doctor it, what was your creationist source that doctored it?


And beyond that, why would someone so well versed in science (30+years, right?) merely accept, at face value, a quote from a third party as being genuine?

Please answer ON TOPIC this time.

Thanks.

 

[tas8831]

Then what are the assumptions, and how are they justified?

Excellent question that deserves an answer.

I submit, however, that I believe that given recent history, you will receive, if anything, an off-topic rejoinder far longer than is necessary.

 

[pshun2404]

Then what are the assumptions, and how are they justified?

There are no assumptions...he merely used this as ONE EXAMPLE....the same rules of probabilities can be applied to any chromosome, length of base pairs, sequence, formed functional protein, and so on....

My only disagreement is that with something highly improbable there is still a chance, while with something impossible WE conclude NO CHANCE (until it happens or has happened)...

In such cases with these actual mathematical determinations, YECs deny the possibility and extreme Darwinians deny the mathematical reality of it's high improbability. I neither assume or affirm either position (IMO they are both wrong).

What Hoyle had concluded was that taking these probabilities in light of the reality that these exist for single proteins, or cells, one then has to assume that this one in 10 to the 300 not only has to have happened millions of times exactly the same, but also for the millions of forms, proteins, and cells of just one body, multiplied further by the bodies of all the living forms and creatures that ever existed. Therefore either it is impossible to have arisen by natural random chemical coincidence OR our estimation of the age of the Universe is far too small (which is the opinion this agnostic chose as the solution).

 

[Loudmouth]

There are no assumptions...he merely used this as ONE EXAMPLE....the same rules of probabilities can be applied to any chromosome, length of base pairs, sequence, formed functional protein, and so on....

Every probability calculation involves assumptions. For example, when you calculate the probability of drawing an Ace of Spades from a deck of cards, the probability is said to be 1 in 52 with the assumption that there are 52 cards in the deck and only one Ace of Spades in the deck.

So what are the assumptions, and how are they justified?

My only disagreement is that with something highly improbable there is still a chance, while with something impossible WE conclude NO CHANCE (until it happens or has happened)...

Highly improbable events happen all of the time. If you shuffle a deck of cards and deal the entire deck face up, the order of those cards has a 1/52! chance of happening, which is 1 in 8x10^67. That's an 8 with 67 zeros after it. Even with those nearly impossible odds, it is a simple task to shuffle and deal the cards out.

In such cases with these actual mathematical determinations, YECs deny the possibility and extreme Darwinians deny the mathematical reality of it's high improbability. I neither assume or affirm either position (IMO they are both wrong).

The problem is that creationists commit the Sharpshooter fallacy.

What Hoyle had concluded was that taking these probabilities in light of the reality that these exist for single proteins, or cells, one then has to assume that this one in 10 to the 300 not only has to have happened millions of times exactly the same, but also for the millions of forms, proteins, and cells of just one body, multiplied further by the bodies of all the living forms and creatures that ever existed. Therefore either it is impossible to have arisen by natural random chemical coincidence OR our estimation of the age of the Universe is far too small (which is the opinion this agnostic chose as the solution).

Can we please see the assumptions and formulae for calculating this probability?

 

[pshun2404]

If you're dealing with a full deck there are no assumptions!

 

[Loudmouth]

If you're dealing with a full deck there are no assumptions!

That loud explosion you hear is millions of irony meters exploding across the world.

There is an assumption right there in your post. You assume that you're dealing with a full deck. THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION.

 

[pshun2404]

The full deck refers to the card analogy....! If one has a full deck the ace of spades IS there not assumed to be there.