Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the old improbable probability problem
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 76 (364454)
11-17-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by DivineBeginning
11-17-2006 7:32 PM


The 6th comment was about the age of the universe and the probabilities of life arrising.
The sixth comment used those as examples of the kinds of "improbability calculations" that creationists make, and it notes that even IF the calculation were correct that it would not mean that {whatever} could NOT have happened.
Improbable ≠ Impossible
No matter how small the probability is. Once you have someone has won the lottery the probability question is answered.
AND Improbable/Impossible = Infinite ... room for Possibility ...
Also see Message 24
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added msg 24 link
Edited by RAZD, : see strike & pink per dwise1, added yellow

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-17-2006 7:32 PM DivineBeginning has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 12-04-2006 3:05 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 76 (367739)
12-04-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dwise1
12-04-2006 3:05 PM


Correct, thanks.
Of course where the question is the origin of life, and if this is what happened, then we are the winners ...

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 12-04-2006 3:05 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 76 (367746)
12-04-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by dogrelata
12-04-2006 1:54 PM


My maths is pretty ropey, but am I right in thinking if something has 1 chance in x of occurring, it can never have less than a 63% cumulative chance of occurring at least once in x events?
I believe the formula to be:
P = 1-((1-(1/x))^x)
We can calculate it for some basic cases to check it out:
Let's use probability of it occurring in any one chance is
P1 = 1/x
assume y chances for it to occur, then the probability of occuring at least once in y times = 1 - probability of it NOT occuring in any of y times, and the probability of it NOT occuring in y times is:
Pnot = (1 - P1)(1 - P1)(1 - P1)...(1 - P1)(y times)
or
Pnot = (1 - 1/x)^y
so
P = 1 - Pnot
P = 1 - (1 - 1/x)^y (= your formula when y=x)
P = 1 - ((x-1)/x)^y
If x = 10 & y = 10
P = 1 - (9/10)^10 = 0.6513 or 65%
If x = 100 & y = 100
P = 1 - (99/100)^100 = 0.6339 or 63%
If x = 1000 & y = 1000
P = 1 - (999/1000)^1000 = 0.6323 or 63%
Looks like it limits out around 63% just as you thought.
If x = 1000 & y = 2000
P = 1 - (999/1000)^2000 = 0.8648 or 86%
If x = 1000 & y = 3000
P = 1 - (999/1000)^3000 = 0.9503 or 95%
We can also solve for
P = 1 - ((x-1)/x)^y = 50%
1 - 0.50 = ((x-1)/x)^y
ln(0.50) = (y)ln((x-1)/x)
y = ln(0.50)/ln((x-1)/x)
And for x = 1000
y = (-0.6931)/(-0.0010) = 693 times
or at y = ~70% of x the chance is 50% that it has occurred AT LEAST once.
And 50% is pretty good odds in anyones 'books' eh?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by dogrelata, posted 12-04-2006 1:54 PM dogrelata has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 76 (446217)
01-05-2008 8:52 AM


For tymygy
tymygy proposed a new topic:
the chances of chance...
quote:
I would like to ask you how you can go against these stagering numbers im about to tell you...
the probibility of us coming here by accident is 10 to the 40,000 power.(one with 40,000 zeros behine it) the number of atoms in the universe is 10 to the power of 65. anything over 10 to the power of 50 is accounted impossible in science and mathematics.
i would like to see someone try to debate against me
We can do that here.
quote:
AdminNosy response:
Now if you would just supply your calculations to be checked as I asked in my other reply to you then we can promote this for further dicussion.
This will be the issue -- how your numbers are actually calculated, what are the assumptions, and whether you are prepared, willing and able to discuss the errors in the method used?
Just for the record, the probability of our being here is 1.
The probability of math proving something can or cannot happen in reality is 0.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 76 (661751)
05-09-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-14-2004 10:45 AM


redirected post
zaius137 posted the following in Message 236 on the How do "novel" features evolve?
quote:
Hi RAZD,
I like your detailed replies and I see a challenge in addressing your thoughtful points. There is a lot to catch up on here and I hope the other participants understand why I cannot get right to the arguments they present although they are just as challenging.
I would like to start with one of the posts you presented and cited namely the 6 points you made.
1. The calculation is a mathematical model of reality and not the reality itself. When a model fails to replicate reality it is not reality that is at fault but the mathematical model. When a hurricane prediction program crashes because it can't model the first hurricane in the South Atlantic on record, the meteorologists don't go out to the hurricane and say "you can't be here, our model does not allow you to be here" ... they fix the model by looking for and taking out the failed assumptions (ie - that all hurricanes are north of the equator). When a model fails to model reality it is a good indication that some aspect of reality has been missed in the model.
The very mathematical models that scientists use to uphold evolution are the very same principles that evolutionists use. If you claim failure in a general sense of mathematical models, you remove the argument from science.
2. The calculation fails to account for the known pre-existing molecules used in the formation of life that are found throughout the universe, and this failure means the calculation with creation-all-at-once including these molecules is unnecessarily extended downward, starting with too much simplicity.
Not all the necessary molecules are present, for instance cytosine is not found in meteorites. The sugar that bonds to the four bases to form the ribonucleotides is very short lived in nature. Many problems exit with the RNA worldview and the SRPs, I hope we can cover them fully. The science has never demonstrated empirically that anything but an all at once approach is possible.
3. The calculation fails to account for the fact that the first life need not be as complicated as a modern cell, that the minimum configuration is much simpler as shown by the LUCA studies. This failure means that the calculation is unnecessarily extended upward, ending with too much complexity.
To date the idea of a LUCA has proven an intractable problem in biology. I have just read a paper of statistical verification of the LUCA by Theobald based on the Markovian substitution model. The claims of Theobald that a LUCA is statistically proven are criticized amongst scientists (not many of which are creationists). I have my own unanswered questions about that paper.
4. The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in smorgasbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods.
Can a failed experiment be available in a new experiment? I think this statement speculates about the stability of the product. I cannot deny if there is intention to preserve some organic molecules from degradation, then yes the experiment can continue. However, natural chemistry has shown no intent to do so. In fact, equilibrium rules the day in natural chemistry. As far as the spontaneous assembly of amino acids are concerned Millers experiments demonstrate a Chirality problem.
5. The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? By knowing that any one of the millions of tickets is a valid winner if picked..
Well, in low larger ranges of probability I would agree with you, say 1 in 10^6 or 1 in 10^15. However, probabilities in the range of 1 in 10^1000th are not possible given the acceptance that our universe is limited ( I refer to a universal bound of possibilities). Acceptance of limits, say in calculus are necessary in producing an outcome, even in physics (Plank length, Plank time etc.). I suggest that Dembski’s limit would be acceptable in biology.
6. Finally, the improbability of a thing occurring is not proof of impossibility of it occurring.
I can refer you to my objection in point 5 but I think you might benefit by some perspective on the matter. Please comment on my message 228 Please excuse my lack of forum knowledge I am still a Newbe.
The very mathematical models that scientists use to uphold evolution are the very same principles that evolutionists use. If you claim failure in a general sense of mathematical models, you remove the argument from science.
A mathematical model is only as good as the data fed into it and it's ability to make predictions that can be tested by objective empirical evidence. The map is not the mountain. The map can be tested against the mountain and errors and omissions can be found ... in the map (at which point the map needs to be corrected).
Biologists don't use mathematical models to "uphold evolution" but to provide testable predictions. Then they look for errors and omissions, and update the model as necessary, understanding that it is a tentative representation of reality.
Not all the necessary molecules are present, for instance cytosine is not found in meteorites. The sugar that bonds to the four bases to form the ribonucleotides is very short lived in nature. ...
This is making the the tacit (and completely unsupported) assumption that all aspects seen in cells today are necessary to form a first living cell. Properly addressing this question also involves in determining what characteristics are needed to become "life" ... an issue for another thread.
... Many problems exit with the RNA worldview and the SRPs, I hope we can cover them fully. ...
Curiously no one has claimed that the science of abiogenesis has found all the answers, just that they are making progress on finding answers in many places and in many different stages.
... The science has never demonstrated empirically that anything but an all at once approach is possible.
Interestingly there are several scientists that would disagree, imho. As I said in Message 234 on the How do "novel" features evolve? thread:
quote:
Premise 3 is debatable, if not just wrong: see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for objective empirical evidence that indicates to me that the probability of life forming is high.
What I see in all the science referenced in those two threads is that people are working on different elements and stages, rather than on the all at once approach.
The place to discuss these issues, however is on the Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) threads.
To date the idea of a LUCA has proven an intractable problem in biology. I have just read a paper of statistical verification of the LUCA by Theobald based on the Markovian substitution model. The claims of Theobald that a LUCA is statistically proven are criticized amongst scientists (not many of which are creationists). I have my own unanswered questions about that paper.
There is no such thing as "statistically proven anywhere (imho) and certainly not in science. Science does not "prove" a single hypothesis.
And your reply does not address the issue that the first life can be much simpler that life we see today. Let's not go down the rabbit hole of what LUCA is or isn't, but focus on what is necessary for an initial life form. All that is necessary, imho, is for a self-reproducible system that can evolve - where the mechanisms of evolution involving mutation and selection can operate.
Can a failed experiment be available in a new experiment? I think this statement speculates about the stability of the product. I cannot deny if there is intention to preserve some organic molecules from degradation, then yes the experiment can continue. However, natural chemistry has shown no intent to do so. In fact, equilibrium rules the day in natural chemistry. ...
Remember here that the "failed experiments" in this particular discussion are spontaneously formed molecular compounds, and they are only "failed" as self-replicating molecules. These molecules can be short to very long without attaining self-replication, but still be available for further combination with other molecules while remaining in a dynamic chemical equilibrium of on-going reactions.
... As far as the spontaneous assembly of amino acids are concerned Millers experiments demonstrate a Chirality problem.
What problem? (a) the experiments did produce amino acids used in modern life, (b) several other experiments have built on the Miller Urey Experiment ...
quote:
In recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller—Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids — only those available in prebiotic nature — than the current one.[25]
... (c) the otherr molecules would be "failed experimant" molecules that are still in the system to be taken apart and reassembled, and finally, (d) this is irrelevant to the question of probability calculations based on a proper modeling of molecular formation, and it would be better discussed on the Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) thread.
Well, in low larger ranges of probability I would agree with you, say 1 in 10^6 or 1 in 10^15. However, probabilities in the range of 1 in 10^1000th are not possible given the acceptance that our universe is limited ( I refer to a universal bound of possibilities). ...
Curiously, this just shows that calculations of 1 in 10^15 are more likely to be bogus wild-ass guesses than real calculations that model reality.
Of course you could show that I am wrong by presenting the calculations and by showing that all possible avenues for the formation of life are covered, what is necessary for life to begin (and what is "life" in this context, eh?).
I'm betting that you can't show the calculations, but have just copied the number from some bogus creationist site.
... Acceptance of limits, say in calculus are necessary in producing an outcome, even in physics (Plank length, Plank time etc.). I suggest that Dembski’s limit would be acceptable in biology.
Why? Amusingly, I would say that no limit need be considered until one is found, and I believe most scientists would agree.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : replies added.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 10:45 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2012 9:06 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 48 by zaius137, posted 05-10-2012 7:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 76 (661847)
05-10-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Wounded King
05-10-2012 9:06 AM


Re: Chirality strikes back
Hi Wounded King
I know you are familiar with the argument so I assume that your question to Zaius was rhetorical or socratic in nature.
Yes, more specifically, though, what I mean is that the presence of dextro rotatory amino acids does not mean that the levo rotatory amino acids are not available for the formation of life.
What we don't know is how the amino acids were filtered for what is used ... it could be that some other aspect of cell formation may have caused the selection of levo rotatory amino acids.
In terms of probability for the formation of life it is like drawing a card from a pack and then matching the color with the next one picked.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2012 9:06 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 76 (661905)
05-10-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by zaius137
05-10-2012 7:11 PM


probabiity problems
Hi again zaius137
b = (Np +2) [ m log(Np) . qmax + qra ]
That is one way one cell could be formed ....
How many other ways could it be formed?
How many cells could be formed with one different protein? two? three?
How many cells could be formed where one protein in the calculation is replaced by two different ones? three?
How many possible cell formations are there?
These questions and more need to be answered before the calculation can begin to be considered a valid representation of possibilities: you need to KNOW all the possibilities that can be formed, and how many could result in life of some kind, before you can begin to calculate probabilities.
Consider that I have a single di in my hand: what is the probability that I will throw a 6? If you don't know how many sides there are AND how it is marked, you cannot calculate the probability.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by zaius137, posted 05-10-2012 7:11 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by zaius137, posted 05-13-2012 2:11 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 76 (662183)
05-13-2012 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by zaius137
05-13-2012 2:11 AM


Re: probabiity problems, the multi-sided di issue
Hi again zaius137,
To add to what the others have said
I disagree with this statement. ...
Curiously, I note that you did not tell me what the probability of my throwing a 6 was:
quote:
Message 51: Consider that I have a single di in my hand: what is the probability that I will throw a 6? If you don't know how many sides there are AND how it is marked, you cannot calculate the probability.
If you disagree then you should be able to make the probability calculation for throwing a 6, and if you cannot make that calculation then you de facto agree with the statement.
... Do all the variables need to be quantified before any hypothesis can be formulated?
An hypothesis is a guess, not a calculation. It may be an educated guess, based on partial knowledge, as is normally the case in science (where the purpose of the hypothesis is to make predictions to enable testing the hypothesis for validity), but it certainly is not a calculation of any probability.
For instance I could hypothesize that the di in question had at 6 sides and that it was numbered sequentially from 1 up, as is normally observed in most games. If during the course of a number of test throws the numbers 1 through 5 occurred that would tend to validate the hypothesis, although it could be a six-sided di numbered 0 through 5 or an eight-sided di (or one of the other game di available). If I throw either a 0 or a 12, or a letter A, then the hypothesis is invalidated.
Interestingly, I recently found a di in the walls of my house (I am remodeling a circa 1795 colonial cape cod style housee), but the di is of fairly recent vintage: it has a blue square on two sides, a red circle on one side, an "S" on two sides, one in a blue square and the other in a red circle, an "X" on the last side, in a black square. No 6's, so the probability of throwing a 6 with this di is zero.
Enjoy.
ps -- anyone know what game this goes to?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by zaius137, posted 05-13-2012 2:11 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 76 (662329)
05-14-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by zaius137
05-14-2012 1:11 AM


Re: probabiity problems
Hi again zaius137
Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are
For the form of life that arose on this planet. How many other viable forms of life could have arisen instead?
Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are
And how many different ways can each of these elements occur?
If you have a thousand decks of cards all mixed together, how many different ways can you form a royal straight flush in spades? A billion decks? Would you agree that these would be a much larger number of possible ways than could occur from a single deck?
this only goes to show a estimation of a probability can be made.
Again, you have failed to tell me the probability I will throw a 6 with the di in my hand. If you don't know all the possibilities then you cannot calculate the probabilities.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by zaius137, posted 05-14-2012 1:11 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Genomicus, posted 06-12-2012 1:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 76 (665317)
06-11-2012 9:31 PM


bump for LexM1985
In Creatonist argument for probability (in Proposed New Topics) LexM1985 says
Many of you have probably at some point come across the creationist argument for probability which often uses calculations to make the case that the formation of the universe and life could not have arose by "chance." This argument differs slightly from the argument for intelligent design in that it not only examines the alleged complexity, design, and order of structures (for example examining the complexity/design of a molecule), but the probability that each component of the universe needed to sustain life could have developed independently and function seamlessly. This argument is commonly used to try to disprove abiogenesis and strives to demonstrate that earths position in the universe is too perfect to have gotten there by chance (Goldilocks argument). The calculations made to support these arguments result in staggeringly huge numbers like 3.34 x 10^450 and are usually followed with Borel's law.
Without even thinking too hard about it, I see a few things wrong with this argument
1) It assumes that that the development of the universe is random, when in reality it is driven by the laws of nature
2) The universe is practically infinitely vast. For the one planet that did develop within a life sustaining solar system, there are countless others that did not.
3) It only looks at the way life DID develop ex post facto instead of all the ways it COULD HAVE developed with only slightly different conditions.
Any thoughts?
Hi LexM1985, and welcome to the fray,
See Message 1 for other parts of this issue. Feel free to add here.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by LexM1985, posted 06-11-2012 11:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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