Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A point about probability
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 1 of 65 (516996)
07-28-2009 5:22 PM


This video shows a man getting a hole in one on a par 3 hole by happening to hit his ball so that it lands on the green, rolls, bounces off of his opponents ball, and drops in the hole. For all those math whizzes out there that are so good at calculating how impossible evolution is, what is the probability that this man would be able to hit this shot? I'm betting the odds against it are super high. Does that mean that it didn't happen? Should I disregard the evidence that is this video, because, obviously, it's just too improbable? /point

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2009 8:19 PM Stagamancer has replied
 Message 5 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-28-2009 8:41 PM Stagamancer has seen this message but not replied
 Message 12 by Phage0070, posted 08-02-2009 12:53 PM Stagamancer has replied

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


Message 4 of 65 (517018)
07-28-2009 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
07-28-2009 8:19 PM


Re: probability nothing ...
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh. How did I not see that before?

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 3 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2009 8:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 7 of 65 (517157)
07-30-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by slevesque
07-30-2009 1:32 AM


what exactly do you mean by that?

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 6 by slevesque, posted 07-30-2009 1:32 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 07-30-2009 2:06 AM Stagamancer has replied

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


Message 9 of 65 (517163)
07-30-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
07-30-2009 2:06 AM


Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.

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 8 by slevesque, posted 07-30-2009 2:06 AM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 14 of 65 (517848)
08-02-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phage0070
08-02-2009 12:53 PM


Was it extremely unlikely? Sure. But I don't think it was as unlikely as it might at first appear.
That was partially my point in posting this in the first place, and this is also often the case when talking about the probabilities in evolution and adaptation or abiogenesis. If you try to take each individual occurrence in this golf clip and calculate the odds of it happening in a vacuum, sure, this shot seems completely improbable. But if you put it into context, it doesn't really seem that crazy.

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 12 by Phage0070, posted 08-02-2009 12:53 PM Phage0070 has not replied

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


Message 15 of 65 (517850)
08-02-2009 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
07-30-2009 2:06 AM


And then you asked what was the probability of that particular pattern to happen. I asked what was the probability that a pattern would happen.
Well, I guess I don't really see it as pattern, more as a series of events. I mean, in my mind, a pattern implies some amount of reiteration. Maybe it doesn't for you. However, what is the probability that a series of events would occur after the golfer hit the ball, the answer is, of course 1. There are also probably numerous series of events that would end with the ball in the hole on the first shot, which means the probability of a hole-in-one is much higher than the probability of a hole-in-one happening exactly the way it did.

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 8 by slevesque, posted 07-30-2009 2:06 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 1:18 AM Stagamancer has replied
 Message 26 by InGodITrust, posted 08-17-2009 1:28 AM Stagamancer 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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 33 of 65 (519829)
08-17-2009 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by slevesque
08-17-2009 3:39 AM


Re: Disproving Natural Selection Through Probability
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.
You're analogy is not a good one for two reasons.
1) you're talking about an individual finding his own name in the sand, but evolution is not about individuals. Any individual within a population can introduce a mutation to a population, so using the probability of a specific individual getting a mutation is an irrelevant argument. What's important is the probability of a mutation occurring in a population, and this is much higher.
2) Names in the sand have no known natural mechanism for forming. However, mutations have a known natural mechanism, so there's no reason to introduce any supernatural force. What's more probable, mutations occurring on their own (an observed and documented phenomenon), or a super being that makes changes to DNA and phenotypes without leaving the littlest bit of empirical evidence?

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 29 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 3:39 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 10:55 PM Stagamancer has replied

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


Message 35 of 65 (519869)
08-17-2009 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by slevesque
08-17-2009 10:55 PM


Re: Disproving Natural Selection Through Probability
If some structures require two mutations to happen at the same time in the same individual in order for them to be advantageous, what is the probability of it happening ? What if some structures require three simultaneous mutations ? or four ? or five ? When does it become a simple appeal to luck ?
Examples please.
''All'' I would need is that every single mutations required to change my human DNA to the DNA of a bear happen in that single generation. Mathematically, it can happen. But would it be scientifically justifiable to propose this explanation if it did in fact happen ?
You're right, a simple appeal to luck is not enough. You need more evidence. BUT, simple probability also cannot disprove anything. Ergo, if an explanation is highly improbable and there is a better, more probable explanation, go with the more probable explanation. That's parsimony. But if there is an explanation that is highly improbable, but there is no better explanation, the improbability of it does not disprove it. There is no viable alternative to evolution by natural selection. IDers have not produced any POSITIVE evidence for their "hypothesis". There is ample positive evidence for natural selection.
Edited by Stagamancer, : Came up with a better argument

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 34 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 10:55 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 08-18-2009 12:59 AM Stagamancer 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