A point about 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

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.

Theodric, you asked if I was trying to find a way to disprove evolution by natural selection. Yes.I'm not smart enough or well educated enough to discover a way to overthrow Darwin's theory myself, but I'm hoping someone else can. Maybe Behe; I'll have to check out his work.Why? Religion. Even if I could stretch the Bible to interpret that a day is not literally a day in Genesis, and maybe God layed down fossils while tweaking and fine tuning life forms, I still could not stretch it to the point of Darwin. Man evolving by chance is impossible to reconcile with the Bible. God created man in his image; Jesus walked the earth as a man; and only man--not animals--can be blessed with everlasting life through Jesus.I bet it would seem to most scientist that someone searching for a way to disprove Darwin is on a futile mission, like a treasure hunter looking for the Lost Dutchman's Mine. But even if I don't find anything, all is not lost: I'll learn a little about biology.Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.

Thanks Dwise1 for the your reply. So, I take it that even if someone could show that two simultaneous mutations would be necessary to achieve some modification to a species, it would by no means disprove Darwin. It would not be anywhere near so astronomically improbable that the scientific community would take any notice.And I think I see how PaulK's point about probabilty traps could come into play in evolution. Just like the particular outcome of the string of coin tosses is improbable, a particular modification to a species is also improbable. But the coins had to turn out someway, and evolution might have to turn a species out some way, if not the way it did then another way that was advantageous and selected.I take it the scientific community is not impressed with Behe. But what if it could be shown that simultaneous mutations had to occur routinly? Wouldn't that slow natural selection down to a point where it was questionable? Something that happens once in a thousand years now would happen once in a million years.

Theodoric wrote:QuoteAlso, even if TOE was totally proven wrong this would in no way make creationism or ID correct. No matter how much energy that is put into discrediting TOE, discrediting it will not help creationism or ID. They need to have some sort of evidence on their own. Proving TOE incorrect does not prove either of them correct.End Quote--------------------------------------------------------------------Acknowledged. But if the theory fell into doubt among scientist, I can envision more lay people giving the Lord a chance. Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You cannot believe that God could have formed Man through evolution? You don't think He's capable of guiding the process? So He's not so omnipotent after all?

---

----------------------------------------------
I believe God had the power to do that if he chose. But I don't think natural selection allows for God to have guided the process. The word "natural" wouldn't fit. Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

-----------------------------------------------------The quote above is from myownself in an earlier post here. After reading everyone's responses and rethinking this, I concede that there would be no damage to TOE from a single case of two simultaneous genetic mutations resulting in a modification that gets selected.The only question remaining for me is if the theory can be damaged by routine cases of simultaneous genitic mutations. Many of you have answered that no, probability can do no damage to the theory. I'm not convinced, and still need to think it through (I'm kind of slow).And of course none of this matters unless someone can show simultaneous mutataions resulting in modifications even happen at all. Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Here's an improbabality, a poker hand occuring that the chances of it happening are 1 in 2.7 billion. Almost completely impossible, yet, it occured.

---

------------------------------------------------Onifre, it a was a wild game of poker there. But I wonder what the odds of Ray Ramano and another player who folded were of getting the exact hands they got.I would liken the two lousy, unremarkable poker hands to the many pairs of simultaneous genetic mutations that do not result in a selectable modification.And I would of course liken the number of poker games played before this amazing one to population.

quote:

---

I believe God had the power to do that if he chose. But I don't think natural selection allows for God to have guided the process. The word "natural" wouldn't fit.

So you're telling us that you believe that your god is powerless in the face of Nature?

---

No, what I meant was that I thought "natural" in natural selection limited the theory to being driven by random genetic mutations. I didn't think scientst were open to the selections being made by God.BTW Dwise1, I was going to respond this morning to a couple other points you made a few days ago, but I'm running out of time. I'll have to get back here later.But I just wanted to comment that some people have written in this thread that there is no hope for using probability against TOE, but you wrote that there is some hope, if the models are sound and you do the math.And one other point about probability is that it is most powerful when used over a large number of trials, right? Like a string of 10 coin tosses could easily give a 70 or 80% heads result. But a million tosses would give a 50/50 result. Works for casinos, that's for sure. So with natural selection, if probability is going to be brought to bear, it would be better to use it in that way.

quote:

---

Nice to know that science has such value to you.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Theodoric, of course science has value to me. I wouldn't have this computer to sit at without science, and I wouldn't have the lesure time. And I just drank a glass of water from my tap that was disinfected.It's just that pesky TOE. That and maybe the big bang.