Evolution and Probability

Just as a side note I

Just as a side note IThat'll teach me for not previewing!!!! Had a open square
bracket in there .....[This message has been edited by Peter, 10-28-2003]

Just as a side note I'd like to point out that there are
a number of conflicting camps within the discipline of
information theory.An emerging definition for information is, basically and very
truncated'Data plus the meaning ascribed to it by an intelligence'.Shannon Information (sans semantic meaning) is then considered
'data' rather than 'information'.I agree with you , BTW, you cannot apply the principles of data
transmission to information.

I think you'll find there's only two camps: information theorists and Creationists. This is the Creationist definition. It was invented to construct a plausible sounding objection to the possibility of evolution creating complexity, it has no basis in reality, and it has no actual useful application.--Percy

Hi,I'm a Mathematical Physicist not a biologist so please forgive me for my ignorance but I have been reading through your arguments and I was wondering about a few things.The argument seems at present over the probabilities given that evolution is underway which statistically/mathematically/logically/honestly you can not possibly accurately predict as each step influences the next in an unknown fashion.I want to ask a question based on the principles of mathematical induction. Mathematical induction which I'm sure you'll probably be aware has two parts to it; initialisation and inductive hypothesis. Or for a simple simile it is like asking two questions; If a domino falls over, will it knock over the next? (Inductive Hypothesis) and Can the first domino be knocked over? (Initialisation). You have been arguing over the 'inductive hypothesis' in a somewhat futile fashion (seemingly... again I apologise for my ignorance) but I am wondering about the probabilities of the 'initialisation'. What is literally the first step (or steps) and what are the odds of them coming together to get the ball rolling?If this has been covered I apologise(again) but from my stand point it is the only thing you can show with any true evidence to argue over - as you can go make up your soup in the lab and test it. This of course begs another question - were the ingredients available?As for other points. Comments stating the odds of God existing are very low seem to be very empty statements with literally no basis but prejudice. And comments which say for creationists the existence of God is 12.6 or something, although sweeping are not far from a truthful point. I've spoken to many people over this, particularly christians. Active christians do not believe in God cause of some blind faith which's truth will be revealed to them on death. They believe in God because they have an active relationship with God (Jesus) in their daily life. They 'know' Jesus. If they know God then it logically follows that God exists in order for them to interact with him/her/it. Thus the probability for them that God exists is a logical 1.
I thought I'd make that point even though I'm sure the comments were mostly in jest.But Anyway... Back to my major question, if you would do me the honour... Can you knock over that first domino?

You're looking at it from the wrong direction in time. We're sitting here, looking at a pile of fallen dominoes. We know exactly what mechanisms exist that would cause one falling domino to make the next fall, too (random mutation + natural selection). The pattern of fallen dominoes suggests they were in a line before they fell. If natural law is sufficient to knock over all the subsequent dominoes, why assume that it's insufficient to knock over the first one?Anyway, I think your whole method is wrong - this is science, not math. We don't deduct from known principles - science hasn't worked like that since Aristotle. What we do is make observations and generalize models to explain them, models that make testable predictions, which we then test.

Crash's comments about obsevation are meaningful. There is work going on trying to figure out what may have lead to that first domino falling.I disagree with Crash a little though. The first domino is not the same as all the rest. It is like a inductive proof in that regard. You do have to separately demonstrate the starting point.Once the domino's are falling then we have evolution. Clearly the question of getting them falling is difficult. It isn't like evolution where we see so much remaining evidence of past occurances and have things to test today. We are having to probe back over 3 billion years and try to see what happened then (or may have happened).If you want to google you will find experiments on self replicators and other reductionist approaches to this problem. I think you will also find reference in threads discussing the issue here.

Well, this is kind of true - although I think that there is a similarity - the mechanism of the origin of life is more likely to be a mechanism that we see operating today - a natural process of some kind - than a mechanism that we've never seen operate - the Hand of God.

Can I just say thankyou for replying to my original text. I am always intrigued by anothers incite... and who doesn't enjoy being patronised over the philosophy of science. I do however have some doubts/replies(...still!).You say I'm looking at it the wrong way round.

quote:

---

We're sitting here, looking at a pile of fallen dominoes

---

At this point I must firstly disagree with you.Before I was saying that arguing over whether the Evolution model was viable given it was underway is meaningless.

quote:

---

The argument seems at present over the probabilities given that evolution is underway which statistically/mathematically/logically/honestly you can not possibly accurately predict as each step influences the next in an unknown fashion.

---

Neither side can show that it is able to produce the needed results (our present natural state) or that it can't. It is not possible to show that it is viable or that it isn't! (By viable I mean likely given the time contraints)ie. Anyone who says that the domino knocks over the next is assuming that the evolution model given that is underway is true (not just viable - actually happened). This is (At least partly) what this entire debate/website is about! You can't just decide that it is true!I am intrigued by you latter comments though crashfrog. You say that WE have never seen "the Hand of God" operate. Firstly you should probably change that too a safe 'I' or possibly 'a group of us' (be it large or not) so not to make any assumptions which are very volatile (could mean everything) in this debate. Secondly if a creator God did exist all systems/mechanisms would be of him/her/it so one could probably argue EVERYTHING you see is the "Hand of God". Lastly I put forward a more subtle point. Admittedly it is a philosophical one but bare with me I beg of you. Suppose a creator God did exist. He would therefore be able to exist in a state outside of space-time (If he/she/it wasn't he/she/it would be dependant upon space-time and would therefore not be able to create it - nothing would prequisite such an entity). We are well and truly dependant on space-time. Our very conception of everything is based upon it. We struggle to imagine thinking/doing with very little time, let alone no time at all! Our mind cannot conceive it. The nature of the creator God is thus inconceivable to us. Added to this is the fact we barely understand our own nature or that of the universe within which we inhabit. To believe we do is simple arrogance and a trap humanity has fallen into way to many times. "The Hand of God" is the mechanism of interaction of the nature of God to the nature of us and our universe. We have already established we don't understand one nature and barely the other. Yet you are trying to define the relationship between the two. And then make the claim you have never seen it - How would you know?!I've written a lot there. So I'm not sure if it's all logical and correctly communicated. For that I apologise. If I've gone nuts at some point could you show me where I've gone wrong? I would be very grateful to anyone who aided me in my quest for truth.

I stand by my words. If God has ever acted, then he only acts in ways indistinguishable from natural law and random chance, and in that situation, is it even possible to say that he's acted at all? Nope. Furthermore to entertain the idea that god has acted, it's necessary to know that god exists, and we can be reasonably sure that a moral god who can act in this universe does not, in fact, exist.You may make the "ineffability" argument, that god is non-understandable, but if he is, then he's irrelevant to rational inquiry into the universe, as his actions cannot be modeled. And to all appearances we live in an orderly universe, at least until you get to the small scales. (Even there, though, it follows its own laws.) But most importantly, god must be understandable to be moral. If god is incomprehensible, we would be unable to share his morals, and that would make the Bible et. al. useless.In any case god, apparently, isn't required to construct accurate models of phenomenon in the universe. I feel comfortable saying that the Hand of God does not operate because there's no need for it to for things to proceed according to natural laws.

Hello Dillan,I've got a few questions about your post. First of all let me explain that I am not a mathematician, I am a cell biologist with an embarrassing lack of knowledge in all things statistical. Could you take this into account when you are replying and keep it simple, so my basic maths can keep up.1) You make a big thing in the rehash of the original calculation that you are reducing the number of individuals taken into consideration. Numbers like 5% of a total population does sound like a considerable reduction, but I wonder whether they still are practical. Doesn't every single individual in this group have to be able to contribute to the genetic pool to make the analysis valid? I don't know much about the specific species involved but isn't the real situation more likely to resemble a loose population made up of much smaller groups of interbreeding individuals?2) On a similar note: Does the calculation take into account, for example social factors such as the existance of dominant males. Surely this would have a bearing on your calculations?3) I vaguely remember from my undergraduate days that there was some sort of simple calculation that estimated how many offspring would inherit a particular mutation (and hence how quickly it would establish itself in a species). In this case there was a factor which rated whether a particular trait was highly selectable or not as a percentage (ie 1% being not very useful and 100% meaning VERY selectable), is there anything like this considered in your sums?In short, I do not believe that such mathematical arguments can come to any conclusion without making assumptions or blanket calculations because reality is too complicated and too much of this complication is unknown.I apologise if these points have been raised before in this topic, but I would appreciate it if you spelt it out to me again.Regards"Ooook"

I admire your swiftness to answer me crashfrog but I'm seeing a few holes in your arguments...Firstly you said:

quote:

---

If God has ever acted, then he only acts in ways indistinguishable from natural law and random chance, and in that situation, is it even possible to say that he's acted at all? Nope

---

Ok kind of a big assumption there. Has it occured to you that God's actions are not confined to "natural law and random chance". Obviously YOU have not seen evidence of this but that does not mean it is untrue, it just means you are ignorant of it.And as for your fantastic sweeping:

quote:

---

we can be reasonably sure that a moral god who can act in this universe does not, in fact, exist

---

Would you like to back that up with any basis or just hope its profound impact value will suffice?You say:

quote:

---

But most importantly, god must be understandable to be moral. If god is incomprehensible, we would be unable to share his morals, and that would make the Bible et. al. useless.

---

I'm gonna try and make a point here but it is hard to find a good simile so please take it for the reason it was intended (To portray a point). The model I'm gonna use is that of the relationship of humans and dogs.We quite well understand dogs and their nature but dogs have a very small grasp of the complexities of us. One could go so far to say that we are ineffable to dogs. (If you are a particular believer in the hidden genius, power and knowledge of dogs then I beg of you please stick with my model for now) A dog cannot grasp our nature or moral code by it's own means. However we manage to impart on dogs not to bark loud, to roll over, to pee outside, to be 'good' and not to be 'bad'. How is it that an entity to which we are ineffable has grasped a basic moral structure from us and is obeying them? It does not really understand us at all but it knows what it should do and what it shouldn't in accordance with our morals (which it also probably doesn't understand). The key here is REVELATION. We reveal certain parts of our morals to the dog in a language/medium which it will understand. It is not the dog sitting round and then logically coming to conclusions of human morals - that is impossible(improbable) given that we are ineffable to it (which is your point - thus I show agreement).I repeat this model isn't perfect but it shows what I'm trying to say. You are assuming understanding God is required to get his/her/its morals. It is not. All you can know of God is what he reveals to you on a level that you understand. This is what the Bible is. It is REVELATION from God. It is imparting his morals/nature upon you in a language that you can understand/comprehend. Thus the Bible is exactly the opposite of what you claim.Lastly you say:

quote:

---

In any case god, apparently, isn't required to construct accurate models of phenomenon in the universe. I feel comfortable saying that the Hand of God does not operate because there's no need for it to for things to proceed according to natural laws.

---

I think you should know that our models are still flawed (and we know they are) thus not accurate. I agree with you in part that natural laws seemingly act without God. But why are the laws as they are? (- this is deep philosophy) I'm sure you'll answer will be along the lines of "They have to be - else it wouldn't work" but like the mathematical laws were defined by us( - so they worked), could it not be said the natural laws were defined by God on creation? (If your answer was not that, sorry for assuming - I try not to assume anything without grounding). And besides (Again..) this entire debate/website is about whether the natural laws were sufficient to get us to where we are today or whether they needed some divine/un-natural help. You can't just assume that they were!This has been another long reply. Sorry about that. And I apologise for any communication errors. I await your next incite crashfrog.

No, not really. It's born out by study after study. For instance there was a study just recently that compared the convalescence of heart patients (I think) of various faiths. For some of the patients, they set another person of their faith to pray for them as often as possible. For others, nobody was assigned to pray for them.Guess what? There was absolutely no difference in recovery time between the two groups. There was no way to get God to intercede for any of the patients.This happens all the time. On a controversial topic like gay marriage, if you ask 100 people, you're likely to get 100 opinions. Now, if you take another 100 people, and ask them to go home for a week and pray until they know God's will on the subject of gay marriage, you would expect them to all come back with the same answer, if it were possible to have god talk to you. Instead you get 100 contradictiory opinions.Apparently there's no way to get God to do anything, and there's no way to know his will on any subject. People can't even decide what the Bible means. It's not just assertion. It's fact. If God acts, he doesn't act in a way distinguishable from random chance. If he did, there would be statistical evidence. Sure. The God you're talking about is both moral and powerful, in that he knows how to act morally, and is able to do so. Right?It's trivial to prove this god doesn't exist, given the absence of god's intervention in the world. Morally injust stuff happens all the time, and as much of it happens to Christians as happens to anybody else. A God who could do something about that but doesn't is powerful but immoral, just as you would be immoral if you had the chance to prevent a murder but didn't. A God who wants to do something about it but can't is moral but powerless. Those are the only two kinds of god consistent with the evidence - a lack of god's action in the world. Already your analogy fails. Dogs are not moral entities. Humans are. If god is to be assumed to be moral, the only way we could know that is if we ourselves are moral. If we both are moral then we have that in common, at least.God can't both be moral and incomprehensible at the same time, not if humans are assumed to be moral, too. Now, if you assume that humans have no moral sense, that's fine - god can then be as incomprehensible as you like - but you have to realize that contradicts the Bible. That's not a problem for me but it may be for you. True. However historically they've always become more accurate the more we take God out of them. I'd say that's a pretty significant trend. Because if they were different, we'd ask why they were that way. You're asking me "why am I here?" and I'm answering "because wherever you go, there you are." Ultimately it doesn't matter why the laws are the way they are. They are, so that's good enough. To the contrary, I can. Because the alternative means proposing the existence of entities whose existence can't be confirmed or denied in any way. What's the point of that? What's the difference between my model that explains everything naturally, and yours that explains the same things, but adds untestable chocolate sprinkles? The difference is, I don't waste my time with the stuff that I can't know exists, and wouldn't matter if it did. Ockham's Razor, basically.

quote:

---

Re: A Basic Error

​

Peter writes:
Just as a side note I'd like to point out that there are
a number of conflicting camps within the discipline of
information theory.

​

I think you'll find there's only two camps: information theorists and Creationists.

​

An emerging definition for information is, basically and very
truncated
'Data plus the meaning ascribed to it by an intelligence'.

​

This is the Creationist definition. It was invented to construct a plausible sounding objection to the possibility of evolution creating complexity, it has no basis in reality, and it has no actual useful application

---

Tell that to Prof. Peter Checkland and the Soft Systems Thinking
community at large including departments in the University fo
Lancaster, De Montfort University in Milton Keynes, University of
Sheffield .... this may sound like a 'from authority' clause
that wasn't my intent -- just pointing out that there is a
significant focuss on information as an interpretive act in
the real-world of Information Research.Creationists, as ever, seem to latch on to ideas and form
some half-baked reason to use it against evolution.The type of information I am referring to CANNOT exist in
biological systems, since there is no intelligent interpreter
available -- DNA is data at best ... but really just chemistry
in action.

Hi Peter!Hmmm. Not sure you're saying anything I disagree with now. I think the reason I commented earlier was because of the "conflicting camps" characterization. I think those dealing with the communication and data storage issues issues of information theory and those studying issues related to the intelligent creation and interpretation of information think as themselves as working in different areas and don't see themselves as being in conflict with one another. Maybe if you describe what you see as the conflicts I'll understand this better. Yep! The wavefront exceeding c experiments are another good example of this. Some Creationists have already concluded the experiments are evidence of >c communication of information. Agreed.--Percy