Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

When making a mathematical model you have to choose your variables and you have to decide in what ways something can happen. After plugging the stuff in, and it gives you what seems to be a crazy answer, you have two options:1. Reality is crazier than you initially thought
2. You chose the wrong variables or missed a way that an event can be accomplished.The second is usually the case. The amount of people that think that the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 are incredibly unlikely to happen in a lottery is strangely high. People play and lose poker by choosing the wrong mathematical model for the probabilities involved.Conversly, Einstein famously made this same assumption. A genius - and when he saw a result that seemed to say that the universe was crazy, he assumed his model was in error...it turned out that the universe is crazy, but if Einstein believes that mathematical models are more likely to be the cause of the problem then I'm willing to side with Einstein on that one.

The only thing I can think that you might be thinking is that, including context RAZD appears to be saying: And you think it is funny that he is saying that the we have evidence that abiogenesis has happened so mathematical evidence that purports to show that it didn't must be flawed.However, I don't think anyone else has interpreted RAZD to be saying this. RAZD seems to be saying that where reality and maths seem to contradict, reality should win. In this particular case we assume that the genesis of life had a natural beginning since everytime we examine something, that is the conclusion we reach (natural reasons). Our model of reality seems to indicate natural phenomena have natural explanations. If a mathematical model indicates otherwise then either our model of reality is wrong or the mathematical model is wrong. RAZD was saying that the chances are, its the model that is wrong.He said all this after showing, in detail, as to why the model is wrong.Unfortunately, even trying to see it from your angle I don't see it as funny, from what I perceive your angle to be, it's just logically flawed.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 02-October-2005 03:55 PM

Well, no, not really. What he is actually saying is that we shouldn't bother with about the probabilities because there are 'too many conceptual (mathematical and logical) errors in this kind of thinking, for it to hold any validity as any kind of model of reality.' Indeed, RAZD's central point is that 'there is no way they can properly model the probability without understanding the process to the point where it would be evident that we knew how life evolved.' (given we weren't talking about probabilities surrounding evolution but the origin of life, I assume when he said 'how life evolved' he actually meant 'how life originated'.I think that my be the point you missed. If we knew what the probabilities were, we would know how it happened. If we know how it happened it must have happened. Since we don't know the how, we cannot calculate the probability of that how.Yet people still try, doesn't that tell us something?

Actually what he declared was: I appreciate what you believe he is implying, given context. However what he is saying is perfectly valid. Even if we assume he is directly referring to the origin of life in this quote it is still valid. We do have evidence that there was an abiogenetic origin of life happened. With that in mind, if you develop a mathematical model that states that it is impossible, even before we examine the model the probability is that it is the model that is inaccurate.Incorrect and misleading mathematical models are very common. Especially where statistics go, I'm sure you've heard the old saying about 'damned lies'. The amount of times I've had to explain the Monty Hall problem to otherwise intelligent people testifies to that.We get a mathematical model that totally changes the way scientists would examine the world. Suddenly the entire model of reality needs to be examined.Do we
a) Assume the mathematical model has flaws
b) Assume our understanding of the world is fundamentally flawed.Whilst b) may be true, a) has a higher probability. After all, any Nimrod can produce a bunch of impressive sounding statistics and equations and say "This is an accurate map of the reality". I could probably draw up some statistics about increase in athiesm, that correlates with an increase in life expectancy. I could say something like there are many thousands of deities (X) recorded in history. The chances of choosing the correct deity existing is 1/X, having faith in Yahweh is a many thousands-to-1 shot. Just because I've produced some numbers doesn't mean they stand a high probability of modelling reality correctly.After deducing it is probably the model that is wrong, we examine the model. Given this mathematical model, we have done so and found it is flawed...had we examined it and found no flaws, that is when questions about our understanding of reality need to be asked.

Of course the first assumption is that it was by random processes. Whilst all interactions are probablistic, it doesn't mean we need work out the probabilities involved any more than in other chemical reactions. However, I could argue for the origin of salt water by random processes (adding water to salt sets in place an event dictated by probabilities). Quite right. Nobody is arguing that. What is being argued is that when a mathematical model contradicts the observed model of reality, the mathematical model is most likely to erroneous (sometimes its the model of reality that is wrong, as Einstein found out). The observed model of reality is that most things in the universe are explainable using natural laws. Other things are not explainable. We conclude that the other things that are not currently explained will probably be likewise explainable through natural laws as our understanding grows. We also see evidence that replicating protocells of amino acids that grow and divide can form nucleic acids and polypeptides are easily formed under the right conditions (and we don't need to consider the probabilities of it happening). This further strengthens our conclusion that life can come about without intervention. If a mathematical model says otherwise it is the math model which is probably wrong as opposed to the observed elements of the reality it intends to model. Especially when a cursory glance at the math model shows that it doesn't actually attempt to model the observed realities, but assumes its own reality. It is a valid model. It demonstrates that if amino acids worked in a certain way and the only way life could form would be in a amino soup in equilibrium relying on random brownian motion to cause the acids to combine in the correct manner, then life could not form naturalistically.However, it is not a valid model of reality because it ignores the way amino acids work. It ignores that even if the amino acids worked in the way assumed, they do not have to combine in a certain order. It ignores the fact that this is not the only hypothesis for the start of naturalistic life (indeed, no biochemists I've seen propose this hypothesis anyway). As such the maths model is hopeless at modelling the reality of the proposed abiogenetic origin of life, as predicted by our math/reality law.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 03-October-2005 03:34 AM

NO! RAZD didn't say that at all. RAZD said that we have two main options.1. The mathematical model is right, our model of reality is wrong
2. The mathematical model is wrong, our model of reality is right.and the third, where both are wrong.When faced with a contradiction between the maths and our model of reality (natural phenomena are explainable with natural phenomena) it is usually the mathematical model that is wrong.Do you contest this at all? Do you consider that a mathematical model is more likely to be accurate than the reality?Let me give you an example: A lottery has 48 balls, if you pick six of them you will win the jackpot.n!/{(n - r)!} (where n is 48 and r is 6)=8,835,488,640 to one against winning.The reality: Only a few tens of million people play the game, yet there is usually a winner.Conclusion: Our mathematical model is probably wrong, not the observation that many people win. And intuitively the speed of light is relative to the motion of the observer. It has been conceded that the model proposed (a soup of amino acids in equilibrium randomly bumping into each other) would render abiogenesis impossibly unlikely. However, the model proposed is not what reality is indicating happened. The maths model has no support so it is moot. So you're right. That version of abiogenesis probably didn't happen. I'd bet my house on it.Now, the maths fails to discuss the actual models of abiogenesis the biochemists are working on. Doesn't that tell you that the mathematical model demonstrates nothing useful? Compute WHAT? If you have an accurate chemical/physics model of how abiogenesis could actually happen then we can try to draw up a mathematical model of it to compute these probabilities. One version (the chuck it in a bucket and watch how nothing happens model) has been refuted. Now, how about the repeated heating and dehydrating/rehydrating cycles of amino acids which causes them to form proteinoids - a string of 18 amino acids, the model creationists propose would say that the probability of this happening would be1/20¹⁷ or 1 in 13,107,200,000,000,000,000,000despite the fact that it happens every time.Do you think the mathematical model is accurate? Or do you think that the protenoid microspheres that form, producing nucleic acids, everytime the experiment is run (that is to say, the OBSERVERD reality) is accurate.Stick to the hopelessly simplistic mathematical models that don't model either reality or the hypothesis they intend to if you want. I'm going to stick with observed reality for now though.

Abiogenesis First is inductive reasoning. All things that have been successfully described in the past have had natural explanations. Therefore it is highly likely that the origin of life had natural explanations.Second, we can see how simple life-like protocells can form through a very simple process, which proceed to form polypeptides and nucleic acids. These protocells grow, and then 'bud off' in a manner reminscent of asexual reproduction in simple life.Third, we can see a potential stage further down the road, coacervates, also very simple to make (indeed, you can even buy kits to make them at home).Fourth, evolutionary theory, common descent and the phenomena of evolution all show each life form coming from common descendants. This diversity decreases and decreases until all we see in the fossil record are the simplest forms of life. It would seem to follow that this long trend would continue back to a replicating compound that isn't quite life, back to a compound that doesn't replicate, but a crude form thereof (see mircrospheres), back to a collection of amino acids and so on.These are the evidences that spring to mind. Nothing concrete of course, but evidence seldom is. Its a heck of a lot stronger than a flawed and very simple mathematical model.

It justified RAZD saying that there was evidence for something, which is what you requested.If we have evidence that an event occurred, and a mathematical model which declares it outright impossible, it is more probable that the mathematical model is flawed. As we have seen, this is the case here. You might not think that evidence is being correctly interpreted, but I was under the impression that you accept the evidence just not its interpretation. I showed you that there was evidence in favour of the event. This is what you requested. RAZD said there was evidence for the position that life had an abiotic natural origin, he did not declare that the origin of life had an abiotic natural origin and use that position to state that the mathematical model must be wrong because of that. There is evidence of an abiogenetic start to life, I showed it to you. RAZD stating that is not 'declaring his own belief right and the opposition wrong'. To clarify he said that when there is a positive evidence for a conclusion and only a mathematical model which refutes it, it is likely that the mathematical model is incorrect. That is all he said. Let me demonstrate again, what would be begging the question: However, what RAZD actually said was: It seems clear that RAZD is making no absolute statements about the truth of the conclusion. He is merely making a sequence of statements.

quote:

---

Math is not evidence for reality.

---

True. Maths can help us learn about reality, and a good maths model can help build hypothesi. But these hypothesi would need to be tested and confirmed before their reality would be fully accepted.

quote:

---

If you have a mathematical model that says something cannot happen

---

True.

quote:

---

when you have evidence around you that it has

---

True.

quote:

---

the probability is high that the mathematical model is erroneous.

---

True, RAZD does not say that the mathematical model is erroneous, but that based soley on this sequence of conditions we can hazard an educated guess as to what part of our understanding is erroneous.RAZD was saying this as a conclusionary statement to a list of errors within the mathematical model. This statement was not relevant to the criticisms he made, but was a general closing statement.

I'm not suggesting that it does. What I am saying is that a mathematical model which contradicts the positive evidence is more likely to be wrong than not. It doesn't mean that the conclusion the model reaches is wrong, but that the model is likely to be wrong. A model can be hideously wrong but still produce the right general conclusions.

He was listing a bunch of critiques to the maths. One of them is that it doesn't correctly compute probabilities. That is unrelated the criticism that calculating probabilities for these things is absurd or that the model of abiogenesis attemptd to be modelled mathematically is not a hypothesis held by the science community.This is like me saying to you: The fact that you are arguing the details of evolution (rather than just dismissing it as erroneous) lends credence to it. Showing people the fundamental mathematical errors in a calculation lends no credence to the method of using probabilities to calculate something. Can you imagine how many people accept this mathematical model despite it being based on crap maths?

I find that the lottery analogy is usually misleading. The figures that creationists usually bring out at these affairs are advertised as being orders of magnitude larger than the number of molecules in the visible universe and so a 'winner' isn't necessarily expected.I think the best way to explain why the argument fails has been provided by myself and nwr (As well as numerous others):In Message 67 I said:

quote:

---

It has been conceded that the model proposed (a soup of amino acids in equilibrium randomly bumping into each other) would render abiogenesis impossibly unlikely. However, the model proposed is not what reality is indicating happened. The maths model has no support so it is moot. So you're right. That version of abiogenesis probably didn't happen. I'd bet my house on it.

​

Now, the maths fails to discuss the actual models of abiogenesis the biochemists are working on. Doesn't that tell you that the mathematical model demonstrates nothing useful?

---

And that's a key issue. The creationists maths model fails to actually model the hypothesis (which isn't about randomly bumping molecules any more than baking a cake is).And nwr, in Message 121 said: Unfortunately Faith hasn't responded to these posts so I don't know if she understands this fundamental point.Holmes also brought this up in Message 125 with: To which Faith replied that we can't see the forest for the trees, and we should, for some reason, apply simple common sense rather than years of studying biochemistry.

What's the first ingredient?

Hang on, we are debating whether or not RAZD's post was question begging: declaring it an "obvious fact" is begging the question. Actually, some of RAZDs recent posts in this thread are closer to question begging, however, it might not be and I'm standing by on the recent posts and letting him answer for them. All the models I've ever seen include temperature rises, dehydration cycles, lightening, pressures variations, catalysts. The same kinds of things we deal with whenever we did chemistry at high school.

This isn't a direct response to the post I am replying to. However, I was going to type this anyway so it seems as good a place as any. This was inspired by a statistics lecture I once had the privelage of seeing. It might help you understand your oppositions point of view.Let's say I got arrested for a crime and the only evidence they had was that the criminal was British and a DNA sample. In court, the prosecution says "The chances of the DNA sample providing a false positive are a million to one, therefore you are almost certainly guilty"I reply, "No, the event - 'DNA sample coming back positive' - has already occurred. There are now two possibilities, one is that I am the criminal, the other is that it is a false positive. There are 60 million people in Britain so 59 people would have given a false positive result. Therefore the chances of me being the criminal are 60-to-1 against. I am more likely to be not guilty"This was not an 'evolutionist' piece of maths. This was a statistician talking about probabilities and their non-intuitiveness.
RAZD seems to be taking on this angle, though I'm not convinced I agree it is being applied correctly. Let us have a look at it from a point that I do agree with.1. The chances of life coming into existence at all: Unknown
2. The chances of life coming into existence abiogenetically: Unknown
3. The chances of life coming into existence through the random bumping to gether of organic molecules in a stable homogenous soup: Practically zero.
4. The chances that life came into existence: 1
5. The chances of life coming into existence through a creator: 1-(Answer to 2) = UnknownYou are adamant that number 5 should read:
5. The chances of life coming into existence through a creator: 1-(Answer to 3) = As close to 1 as practically possible.And this is the only purpose I continue on this thread. I have already conceded that certain parts of RAZDs argument look close to begging the question, and now he has expanded on it, his more recent argument looks closer yet. Are you able to concede that your 'point 5' is an erroneous conclusion that should actually read more like mine?

I know and I went to great length to discuss this earlier in the thread, but it seems to be the point he has gone on to make: This is the equivelant of saying "why? you agree that the probability of not being tested positive = zero, therefore the probability of being positively identified = 1, whether by random act or divine act. this is the default of any and every probabiity that has come to pass, for it cannot be undone."To this point Faith agrees, and has never debated. Faith's position is that since we have life what are the chances it arrived here abiogenetically? She claims it's very slim by using an absurdly inaccurate model that doesn't model the hypothesis.