Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A point about probability
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 16 of 65 (517867)
08-03-2009 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stagamancer
08-02-2009 11:46 PM


I meant a pattern ad you mean a series of events.
And of course, the answer is one. There is a 100% chance that there will be a series of events.
Can we say the same thing about the origin of life ? This would be an interesting questio nto answer for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stagamancer, posted 08-02-2009 11:46 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Stagamancer, posted 08-03-2009 1:32 AM slevesque has replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 17 of 65 (517868)
08-03-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
08-03-2009 1:18 AM


Can we say the same thing about the origin of life ? This would be an interesting questio nto answer for sure.
That is a very interesting question. Of course, I suppose it all depends on the context. Given the fact that a golfer hits a ball, we can be certain that a series of events involving that ball will occur. Given certain molecules and the right environment, is it equally certain that a series of events will occur? Sure. Will these events lead to life, not necessarily.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 1:18 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 4:07 AM Stagamancer has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 65 (517881)
08-03-2009 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stagamancer
08-03-2009 1:32 AM


Yeah, that's what I also think, and why I do think that the probability argument against abiogenesis is viable (when it is used correctly of course)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stagamancer, posted 08-03-2009 1:32 AM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Stagamancer, posted 08-03-2009 5:57 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 20 by onifre, posted 08-05-2009 12:05 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 08-05-2009 1:24 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 19 of 65 (518007)
08-03-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
08-03-2009 4:07 AM


why I do think that the probability argument against abiogenesis is viable
But just because probability is low, doesn't mean it can't happen. It may also be that the probability of some kind of life is high, but evolving life as we know it is just a single possibility.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 4:07 AM slevesque has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 20 of 65 (518341)
08-05-2009 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
08-03-2009 4:07 AM


Yeah, that's what I also think, and why I do think that the probability argument against abiogenesis is viable
But it's only viable as a thought experiment, because no matter what the improbability comes out to be, the fact remains that life exists and that would point to a process of abiogenesis, regardless of the improbability.
Like the golf making that shot, the improbability of it happening existed before he took the shot, and yet it happened. In the same sense that, no matter how improbable abiogenesis might be, life exists and therefore trumps the results of the improbabality.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 4:07 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 08-05-2009 10:41 PM onifre has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 21 of 65 (518346)
08-05-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
08-03-2009 4:07 AM


Yeah, that's what I also think, and why I do think that the probability argument against abiogenesis is viable (when it is used correctly of course)
Except for the fact that at one time there was no life. Then there was life. Thus live had to start from no life, thus some form of abiogenesis had to occur, whether created, or natural through chemical/physical genesis. Even if the primitive life came form space it still would have had to start with some form of abiogenesis which, to me, would make the probability as 1:1

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 4:07 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 22 of 65 (518411)
08-05-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by onifre
08-05-2009 12:05 PM


Of course, I did mention 'if it is used correctly'
I should also make a precision here. After seeing the great misunderstanding on both sinds in the 'origin of life' forum regarding the word abiogenesis, I figured that there were two opinions in this debate:
1- Abiogenesis: Defined as the origin of life by natural processes.
2- Special Creation: Defined as the origin of life by a supernatural intervention.
This is meant for clarity of discussion. If you do not agree with the two definition of the terms, you can change it. As long as we all agree on the same words having the same meaning.
Given these definitions, the fact that at one point in time there was no life, and after that there was life is not proof that abiogenesis occured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by onifre, posted 08-05-2009 12:05 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2009 11:28 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 24 by bluescat48, posted 08-06-2009 7:27 AM slevesque has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 65 (518413)
08-05-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
08-05-2009 10:41 PM


Good clarity
I agree with you that the distinction in terms you are making is very useful.
It is just hard to keep people clear on what they mean. Good luck with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 08-05-2009 10:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 24 of 65 (518452)
08-06-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
08-05-2009 10:41 PM


slevesque writes:
1- Abiogenesis: Defined as the origin of life by natural processes.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary writes:
Abiogenesis
(n.)
The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents; spontaneous generation; -- called also abiogeny, and opposed to biogenesis.
It says nowhere that abiogenesis has to be a natural process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 08-05-2009 10:41 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 08-06-2009 11:29 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 65 (518636)
08-06-2009 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by bluescat48
08-06-2009 7:27 AM


Maybe it was not clear, the 'natural process' part is an add-on from me as to keep the discussion more clear
If you don't like it, we can just discuss by talking about 'natural abiogenesis' and supernatural abiogenesis'
I jsut want the terms to be distinct so that we avoid confusion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bluescat48, posted 08-06-2009 7:27 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
InGodITrust
Member (Idle past 1669 days)
Posts: 53
From: Reno, Nevada, USA
Joined: 05-02-2009


Message 26 of 65 (519757)
08-17-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stagamancer
08-02-2009 11:46 PM


Disproving Natural Selection Through Probability
If natural selection is wrong, probability might be one way it can be proven wrong.
The odds of a single DNA mutation arising and getting selected is pretty slim, right? But for two mutations that go hand-in-hand-- and each depend upon the other for selection---to occur simultaneously would be astronomically improbable. Wouldn't it be so improbable that it would disprove evolution by natural selection?
Sooner or later someone may come across a pair like that.
Edited by InGodITrust, : Added a lttle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stagamancer, posted 08-02-2009 11:46 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Stagamancer, posted 08-17-2009 2:09 AM InGodITrust has not replied
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 3:15 AM InGodITrust has not replied
 Message 42 by dwise1, posted 08-18-2009 12:39 PM InGodITrust has not replied
 Message 54 by InGodITrust, posted 08-22-2009 4:00 PM InGodITrust has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 27 of 65 (519758)
08-17-2009 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by InGodITrust
08-17-2009 1:28 AM


Re: Disproving Natural Selection Through Probability
The odds of a single DNA mutation getting selected is pretty slim, right?
No, the odds are not slim for a single mutation to get selected. If the mutation confers a statistically significant advantage, then it will be selected pretty vigorously. Also, even mutations that have a "low" probability of occurring still have a fairly good chance of showing up in most organisms simply due to sheer numbers of individuals.
But for two mutations that go hand-in-hand-- and each depend upon the other for selection---to occur simultaneously would be astronomically improbable.
Nobody's saying multiple mutations have to happen "simultaneously". The whole idea behind the theory of evolution by natural selection is that it's a step by step process. Obviously the first human arm was not produced in a single generation by a slew of mutations occurring in one individual. And this brings us back to my original point, what exactly is the probability of these "astronomically improbable" mutations? And just because something happens relatively rarely doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. If, before that golfer had taken the shot, you were asked to wager $1000 that he would hit a hole in one, would you have taken it? No, of course not, the odds against are "astronomical", but that doesn't mean it can't happen. In fact a professional golfer hitting a hole in one on a par 3 course is 2,500 to 1, and for an average golfer it is 12,500 (Source) yet in August of this year alone there have been at least 18 (verified) holes-in-one registered at http://usgolfregister.org/search.asp
My point is that probability alone in NO WAY disproves evolution by natural selection. In fact, math alone cannot disprove empirical evidence because math cannot prove anything except for math. Math is a model that can be used to guide science, but math cannot disprove a scientific hypothesis, only empirical evidence can, and the empirical evidence is heavily in favor of natural selection.
Edited by Stagamancer, : No reason given.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by InGodITrust, posted 08-17-2009 1:28 AM InGodITrust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 3:39 AM Stagamancer has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 65 (519759)
08-17-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by InGodITrust
08-17-2009 1:28 AM


Re: Disproving Natural Selection Through Probability
I feel you read Behe's new book ''On the edge of evolution'', because that does seem very much as the concept he develops in that book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by InGodITrust, posted 08-17-2009 1:28 AM InGodITrust has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 65 (519760)
08-17-2009 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stagamancer
08-17-2009 2:09 AM


Re: Disproving Natural Selection Through Probability
No, the odds are not slim for a single mutation to get selected. If the mutation confers a statistically significant advantage, then it will be selected pretty vigorously.
Of course, but the question is rather what is the proportion of mutations that do have a selectable effect ?
The reality is that the great majority of mutations have such a small effect on an organism that they are unselectable. Furthermore, the smallest ratio of delitirious/beneficial mutation I have ever seen is 75 to 1. (Highest I saw is a million to one).
Also, even mutations that have a "low" probability of occurring still have a fairly good chance of showing up in most organisms simply due to sheer numbers of individuals
Nobody's saying multiple mutations have to happen "simultaneously". The whole idea behind the theory of evolution by natural selection is that it's a step by step process. Obviously the first human arm was not produced in a single generation by a slew of mutations occurring in one individual.
This is why it is relevant to verify if what we observe can come about in a step by step process. If it cannot, then gradual evolution is falsified.
If there are things that we observe in nature that would require two or more mutations to happen simultaneously, then this would hinder the step by step process hypothesis.
My point is that probability alone in NO WAY disproves evolution by natural selection. In fact, math alone cannot disprove empirical evidence because math cannot prove anything except for math. Math is a model that can be used to guide science, but math cannot disprove a scientific hypothesis, only empirical evidence can, and the empirical evidence is heavily in favor of natural selection.
Of course, but if the math's are heavily against a scientific model, than this model becomes no more then a simple 'appeal to luck'.
Suppose I walk down a beach, and see my name written in the sand. Mathematically, there is a very astronomically small probability that all the sand grains are all in this position. But even if the probability is vanishingly small, it is not zero, and so I could postulate that considering all the beaches in the universe, and in all the billions of parrallel universes, than the possibility that this arrangement of sand grains happens naturally somehwere is high, and so I just happen to be at that very particular place.
Theoretically, my hypothesis is 'valid', but it will always be an appeal to luck, and we all know that the more logical hypothesis to draw is that someone wrote my name in the sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stagamancer, posted 08-17-2009 2:09 AM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by InGodITrust, posted 08-17-2009 3:00 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 33 by Stagamancer, posted 08-17-2009 4:35 PM slevesque has replied

  
InGodITrust
Member (Idle past 1669 days)
Posts: 53
From: Reno, Nevada, USA
Joined: 05-02-2009


Message 30 of 65 (519818)
08-17-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by slevesque
08-17-2009 3:39 AM


Re: Disproving Natural Selection Through Probability
Sleveque, you asked if I read Behe's book. No, but it sounds interesting. Does he have any examples of multiple mutations that would have had to occur at the same time?
The book that got me thinking along this line was Sean Carroll "The Making Of The Fittest". He discussed probabitities for single mutations, but not multiple simultaneous mutations.
He wrote about the mutation to the retina that resulted in full color vision for monkeys, apes, and humans. I wrongly thought that a change in the retina alone would NOT allow for a change to color vision; I figured a corresponding change in the brain would also be neccesary to proccess the signals from the eye. I really thought I was on to something until my idea was dashed when I came across an article about scientists giving mice full color vision with a change in the retina alone. I guess Sean Carroll wouldn't have overlooked something that obvious.
But there might be other places to look, like the development of a body part plus the instinct to utilize it.
Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.
Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.
Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.
Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 3:39 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 08-17-2009 3:43 PM InGodITrust has not replied
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 4:03 PM InGodITrust has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024