hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/11/85)
And now, for something completely different ... ___________________________________________________________________ In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists. The complaint has be raised in several forms. The simplest form of the argument is like this: "... the probability of an organism, so perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..." Well, it sounds good. But, wait! Who is to say that the human being is even remotely near perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organ- ization of the human body? We might say that the shark is far more perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply. And the virus must be the most organized since it is simplistic in con- struction and can remain dormant until food comes along. I doubt a creationist would admit to any of these comments. The GROSS ERROR here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than objective, characterizations. There are, of course, other GROSS ERRORS that will be pointed out later. Another form of the mathematical argument is like a proposition by Henry Morris of ICR (it might be Gish, or some other author): "The probability of 100 body parts forming any configuration is X (some large number). Even if one configuration were formed every second, the amount of time for evolution could not possibly account for the formation of a human body." This has several GROSS ERRORS. First, no scientist would even consider evolution by body parts. This ar- gument is made up by the author and is certainly false thus not too difficult to debunk. Second, in order to make the argument sound a little like evolution, it must acknowledge that when two body parts join in a favorable configuration, they remain so connected. Thus, the probability is much higher, as one must only deal with 98 other parts connecting to this pair correctly. As one progresses through the random joining of body parts, the probability increases, rather than remaining the same. Third, another unjustified assumption is that the body parts can only fit together in one configuration. We already know that, looking just at a n-length protein chain, there exists countless configurations which can exist. Is there some magical number that limits how any x of these chains and other mol- ecules may fit together to form an autonomous configuration? There is nothing to justify such a limit. When creationists talk about probability, they seem to forget, deliberately or otherwise, about other living organisms, much less ones that are extinct. For the programmers out there, one can look at the set of statements in any language and see that a program can consist of countless variations containing different configurations of these statements. Is there a limit to the number of programs that will work? [I am sure that many creationists are going to say, "Well, there you have it! You need a PROGRAMMER to write a program! So there!" Don't waste my precious reading time because that is completely off the subject. Programs usually don't have billions/trillions (am I coming close to the right order of magnitude? I am refering to the number of mole- cules.) of statements put together, and I don't want to hear about your omniscient God until you prove His existence.] As for biological evolution, one should look at the transitions that a grassland goes through as it evolve into a forest. I can just hear it now: "... the forest was there in the first place! The probability of all those trees growing together in one place is so small that ..." (Just kidding! I know none of you crea- tionists would even touch that statement ... would you?) There are also the pseudo-arguments that one might raise after the fact. (I am not suggesting that evolution is one big random toss of the dice.) Suppose some holds 100 dice in his hands and tosses them. Some configuration WILL come out. A pseudo- argument would be like this: "... the probability of THAT configuration is so small that there must have been Divine inter- vention ..." It is one thing to suggest that any one particular configuration is near impossible. But to say, after the event, that some outside force is involved in the making because the probability is so small is nonsense. For example, one may say that about lotteries or the one-arm-bandit, but there ARE winners, right? All comments welcome. ___________________________________________________________________ Keebler
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/14/85)
> In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the > mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists. > > The complaint has be raised in several forms. The simplest form of > the argument is like this: "... the probability of an organism, so > perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental > particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could > never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..." > ... > The GROSS ERROR > here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and > a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than > objective, characterizations. > > ... > Second, in order to make the argument sound a > little like evolution, it must acknowledge that when two body parts > join in a favorable configuration, they remain so connected. Thus, > the probability is much higher, as one must only deal with 98 other > parts connecting to this pair correctly. As one progresses through > the random joining of body parts, the probability increases, rather > than remaining the same. > > Keebler I agree that the argument is flawed, but I think the second error, not the first, is the fatal one. The argument could just as easily have been "how could an organism so complex as a human being have evolved through a random process?" You can dispute the perfection of the human organism, but not its complexity. I feel that the fatal flaw in the argument is that it assumes that evolution is completely random, i.e. according to the theory the first human must have suddenly sprung into being after millions of years of random juxtaposition of genes (or proteins, or body parts, or what have you). That is not how evolution works. Each living organism has descendants. Most of the complexity of human beings was already developed in our ape-like ancestors. Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that you have 50 dice, and that your goal is to get them all to show 3 on their uppermost faces by some random process. You could roll all 50 dice over and over again until all threes show. If you threw the dice once a second, the expected time until success would be (6**50)/2 seconds (for you non-programmers, this means 6 to the 50th power divided by 2). The reasoning is that, on the average, you should expect to go through half of the possible arrangements of the dice before you hit on the right one. Now suppose that take you one die and roll it until you get a three. When that happens, take a second die and roll it until it shows a three. Continue this until all of the dice show threes. This will take much less time than the above method, about 3 times 50 seconds if you roll once each second. Here the resoning is that, for each die, you should expect to go through half of the possibilities before getting the one you want and proceeding to the next die. With this method, you would spend about 150 seconds versus an extremely long time with the other method. Evolution works something like the second method. It doesn't "try" all possible combinations until it hits the right one. Rather, it "tries" incremental changes to already existing organisms. I don't mean to imply that, because there is a goal of obtaining all threes in the thought experiment, that I believe that human beings were a goal of evolution. Evolution doesn't have goals, unless one considers survival of the fittest to be a goal. Human beings evolved into their present form only because of the circumstances of their ancestors. If, for instance, the climate were much colder when humans evolved, then we might all have thick fur. Please don't think that I reject the "punctuated equilibrium" theory because of my above arguments. I believe that it is more likely than gradualism, based on the evidence. My thought experiment was only intended to show that order can come out of random processes in a relatively short length of time if partial results are preserved along the way. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/19/85)
[..........] >Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that you have 50 >dice, and that your goal is to get them all to show 3 on their uppermost >faces by some random process. You could roll all 50 dice over and over again >until all threes show. If you threw the dice once a second, the expected time >until success would be (6**50)/2 seconds (for you non-programmers, this means >6 to the 50th power divided by 2). The reasoning is that, on the average, >you should expect to go through half of the possible arrangements of the dice >before you hit on the right one. >Now suppose that take you one die and roll it until you get a three. When >that happens, take a second die and roll it until it shows a three. Continue >this until all of the dice show threes. This will take much less time than >the above method, about 3 times 50 seconds if you roll once each second. >Here the resoning is that, for each die, you should expect to go through half >of the possibilities before getting the one you want and proceeding to the >next die. With this method, you would spend about 150 seconds versus an >extremely long time with the other method. > .... My thought experiment was only intended to show that >order can come out of random processes in a relatively short length of time >if partial results are preserved along the way. --- >Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) Interesting. This is very similar to a method used to generate 1/f noise via computer. With this method, you set up several 'die' and you roll each of them according to a binary progression, i.e. the first time you roll the first die, the second time the second, the third time both the first and second, the fourth time you roll the third die, etc. the resultant noise is obtained by summing all the dice. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll THINK to know what you REALLY pay!"