|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the old improbable probability problem | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 AND Improbable/Impossible = Infinite ... room for Possibility ... Also see Message 24 Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added msg 24 link Edited by RAZD, : see 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Correct, thanks.
Of course where the question is the origin of life, and if this is what happened, then we are the winners ... 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
tymygy proposed a new topic:
the chances of chance... quote: We can do that here.
quote: 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. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
zaius137 posted the following in Message 236 on the How do "novel" features evolve?
quote: 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: 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: ... (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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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, : addedby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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?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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024