
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details 
Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 

Thread Info



Author  Topic: the old improbable probability problem  
RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
SpiderMBA  or Mirabile_Auditu as you are now calling yourself 
Now that I know who you are, I am not surprised that you have not answsered my rebuttal of your weak post (Message 30), or by the logical fallacies and the ad hominem attacks and the complete lack of substance that were involved in your post. You are not new to the process, nor to me personally, and you can expect no "kidglove treatement" from me (as I usually give to newcomers). Those who are unfamiliar with you will do well to take as a beginning the worst example of a FUNDIE (Fundamentalist Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution) they know as a starting point. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
The post this is a reply to shows a common error in probablity calculations like the one you cited, and I concluded with:
I would include with that anyone who repeats such calculations as factual after they have been shown these common errors and have done nothing to (a) refute the errors or (b) correct the calculations to elilminate them. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
Still waiting for John to step up to the plate and substantiate his assertions of improbability.
He has repeated them without making any effort to provide this substantiation: http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgibin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=174&m=234#234 {sigh} ftr: as long as you cannot show that the errors listed below do not apply to your probability argument it is invalidated. That means dead. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
Let's look at the "probability problem" from a different angle using the same kind of "logic" used in the creatortionista calculations:
Take any protein and cut it in half: what is the probability that it would rejoin in exactly the same way as it was before being cut? We'll label the protein {AMNZ} and it is cut into {AM} and {NZ} portions, and then we see that they can join in the following combinations: {AM}{ZN}Next we'll put them in a sea of {AM} and {NZ} subproteins, say 10^{^+42} just for fun. What is the probability that at least one {AM}{NZ} combination would form? Much more than 0.25x10^{^+42} so it is really astronomical, and thus it MUST have happened (remember we are using the same creatortionista logic eh?) Now we take each sub=protein and do the same "thought experiment" with them Next we'll put them in a sea of {AF} and {GM} subproteins, say 10^{^+21} just for fun. What is the probability that at least one {AF}{GM} combination would form? Still pretty astronomical, so it MUST have happened as well. GOSH. {NSTZ} becomes {NS} and {TZ}Next we'll put them in a sea of {NS} and {TZ} subproteins, say 10^{^+21} just for fun. What is the probability that at least one {NS}{TZ} combination would form? Still pretty astronomical, so it MUST have happened as well. GOSH AND GOLLY. And we can keep going, dividing and recombining until we get down to {AB} {CD} {EF} {GH} {IJ} {KL} {MN} {OP} {QR} {ST} {UV} {WX} {YZ} ... or in the real world until we get down to the 20 amino acids (which we now know can be formed spontaneously or provided by extrasolar generation). There is thus no need to carry the calculation back any more as this is demonstrated as a viable starting point. Now the question is, what is the probability that ONE (1) protein {ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ} formed from all that "goo"? Well we had >0.25x10^{^+42} times 2(>0.25x10^{^+21}) times 4(>0.25x10^{^+10.5}) times 8(>0.25x10^{^+5.25} .... Now observe that 0.25x10^{^+42} times 2(0.25x10^{^+21}) = 0.25x2x0.25x10^{^+42+21} = 0.125x10^{^+63} ... so it just keeps getting better  BOY it really MUST have happened eh? I guarantee you that the math used here is no worse than the math used by creatortionistas in their probability calculations, and that it is just as reality based. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
From Message 18
But obviously you don't, your argument from authority notwithstanding (it is a logical fallacy after all). Please demonstrate your knowledge rather than claim it. If it is a "bunch of malarky" and if you really "majored in math" (and presumably graduated ... after all you can "major" and fail to graduate), then it should be easy eh?
And without the data can do squat. You don't have the data, therefore you cannot compute the probabilities. The computer cannot compute the number that would be successful nor the complete bound of possibilities, among other things. For example: I hold three faceted solids in my hand, the sides may or may not be regular or equal, the number of sides may or may not all be the same on all three, the markings may or may not all be the same on all three: What is the probability that I will throw a "7" when I throw these objects onto the table. Please supply your computations. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : took out link to this thread finished subtitle Edited by RAZD, : added example we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist 

DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 4319 days) Posts: 100 Joined: 
So where did the first cells come from? How did they "get here". Something cannot come from nothing right? If things were always just here than who can tell how old the universe is? If they had a beginning, as you are stating, how did they start their existence? Just curious. I realize this is a little off topic, but I have to find out how you come to your conclusions about the age of the universe.


AdminJar Inactive Member 
DivineBeginning, ALL of your post is off topic. Nothing in it addresses anything in this thread.


DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 4319 days) Posts: 100 Joined: 
Of course it is. The 6th comment was about the age of the universe and the probabilities of life arrising. I thought so anyway. Sorry bout that if I screwed that up.


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
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 â‰ 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


dogrelata Member (Idle past 3604 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland 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: As the number of events increases, so do the probabilities of at least one positive outcome: â€¦possibly.


dwise1 Suspended Member Posts: 3785 Joined: Member Rating: 3.5 
[quibble]


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
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


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
We can calculate it for some basic cases to check it out: Let's use probability of it occurring in any one chance is P_{1} = ^{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: P_{not} = (1  P_{1})(1  P_{1})(1  P_{1})...(1  P_{1})_{(y times)} or P_{not} = (1  ^{1}/_{x})^{^y} so P = 1  P_{not} P = 1  (1  ^{1}/_{x})^{^y} (= your formula when y=x) P = 1  (^{(x1)}/_{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  (^{(x1)}/_{x})^{^y} = 50% 1  0.50 = (^{(x1)}/_{x})^{^y} ln(0.50) = (y)ln(^{(x1)}/_{x}) y = ln(0.50)/ln(^{(x1)}/_{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


RAZD Member Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
tymygy proposed a new topic:
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 Posts: 20156 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
zaius137 posted the following in Message 236 on the How do "novel" features evolve?
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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 PreBiotic Molecules  Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and SelfReplicating Molecules  Life's Building Blocks (Part II) threads.
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 selfreproducible system that can evolve  where the mechanisms of evolution involving mutation and selection can operate.
Remember here that the "failed experiments" in this particular discussion are spontaneously formed molecular compounds, and they are only "failed" as selfreplicating molecules. These molecules can be short to very long without attaining selfreplication, but still be available for further combination with other molecules while remaining in a dynamic chemical equilibrium of ongoing reactions.
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 SelfReplicating Molecules  Life's Building Blocks (Part II) thread.
Curiously, this just shows that calculations of 1 in 10^15 are more likely to be bogus wildass 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.
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) • • •



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019