|
|
| Intelligent Design Redux |
| 12.03.04 (8:47 am) |
Ok, so we've discussed the basics of Evolutionary Theory and some of the basic problems with Evolution, at least when one assumes the only mechanisms driving evolution are random mutation and natural selection.
But what about Intelligent design? First it's important not to confuse Intelligent design theory with Creation Science, the two are almost completely seperate points of view. Creation Science, at least it's modern version, is founded in religious fundamentalism more than science, and assumes that creation took place exactly, literally as it is told in the book of Genesis.
Creation Science has holes in it that are much, much larger than Evolution. First in order to support it one has to deny the entire fossilized record and assume that fossils of such things like dinosaurs are all faked. Having never been one much for consipracy theories I'm afraid I simply cannot accept this notion. Also, one has to assume that the age of the earth is much, much younger than the 4 1/2 billion years as geological and other scientific evidence suggests. Again it requires a denial of scientific fact to support, and again it simply doesn't lend itself well to known evidence. But then I've never been one for a literal reading of the scriptures in this fashion. The first difficulty I run into is the definition of the word day. The Bible may state that God created the earth in 7 days, but no one really knows how long a day is to God. Creation scientists assume that by day the Bible refers to a 24 hour day as we experience them here on earth, the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. But why would God use this as a unit of measuring time, if the earth wasn't even created on the first day? It just doesn't make a lot of sense. It's also important to note that the world originally used that is now translated into most English versions of the Old Testamant as day is actually translated from the ancient Hebrew word jolm. There are a lot of translations for the word jolm, including an epoch (which would indicate any period of time 1,000 years or greater).
My own view of the scriptures is that Gensis, while true, cannot be taken literally because one has to consider the audience. The Word may have come from God, but it was recorded by man, and any explanation of the world origins would have to be put in a fashion that man would understand. If we are designed by a Creator (and I believe that we are), then certainly that Creator if he choose to explain to us our origins would not attempt to explain the inner workings of such things as DNA to a society that had little to no scientific understanding whatsoever.
Try explaning something that complex, like say astrophysics or nuclear physics, to your average first grader and have them record it in their own words, and then read it back. You'll find that what they recorded, while essentially true, probably left a great deal out of the explanation and probably oversimplified things even more than you did to try and get them to comprehend the topic at hand. There understanding, while not wrong on untrue, is going to be very basic and is going to be missing a lot of information that would make things much clearer to a more advanced reader.
Looking at Genesis with this in mind, it actually turns out to be a fairly good explanation of something like evolution, God started with the simplier life forms and gradually created the more complex, culminating in his final and most advanced creation of Man. So really when considered critically there isn't anything in this account that really is at odds with current scientific understanding, it is simply that our understanding of certain mechanisms now is far better and that the account in question was recorded by a society that had virtual no grasp of scientific principles whatsoever. Small wonder the vocbulary and understanding found in the Bible is so different than what we use today. This of course is my own opinion on the subject.
The nature of Intelligent design theory is somewhat different, however, it does not state that any particular creation story or religion is correct, it merely states that as a matter of scientific evidence that there must have been some manner of intelligence that influenced the design of life here on earth.
There is a multitude of evidence to point to this, but I think the most compelling is the combination of amino acids into proteins. All living cells are based on protiens. Without them life as we know it could not exist. Protiens are actually a combination of amino acids, the amino acids combine to form chains. These chains must be in a certain order and combine in a certain way to form protiens.
If it helps you can think of it as a combination lock, much like that of a bank vault. You have to enter the correct combination in the correct order to get the door to open (your desired result). Much the same is true of protiens. If you want to form cells you have to first form specific protiens, and if you want to form protiens you need to first get the proper sequence of amino acids to combine in the correct order to "open the door" or create the protien in question.
Under the notion of intelligent design this is childs play to explain. If you have an intelligent designer he either already knows these combinations or he experiments to find them. He enters the proper combination in the proper order and viola, the bank vault opens, the proteins needed form and life begins.
The problem is the flip side of the coin, the notion that there is no intelligence at work and that life forms as a function of random chance. With no intelligence at work, you more or less have to keep trying different combinations randomly until you find one that works.
Lets use our combination lock again to illustrate by example. Lets say we have an extremely simple lock, one that only has numbers from 0-9 (10 different possibilities) and that it only requires one number to open. Now, opening this sort of lock is going to be pretty easy, all you need to do is find which of the 10 numbers you need to open the lock. You have a 1 in 10 chance of finding that particular number on your first try. Lets say we want to be methodical about this and we begin with number 1. That doesn't open the lock. So we try #2 instead. Our odds that this is the correct combination increase from 1 in 10 to 2 in 10, because we already know that #1 is not the correct combination. We tried it once and it didn't work. As you can see it won't take long for us to open a lock like this, our odds decrease with each attempt. Eventually we will find the right combination.
However, this method requires a guiding intelligence. It is the guiding intelligence that realizes that #1 is not the correct combination, discards it and doesn't try the same number again. Without that guiding intelligence, what happens? We are reduced to simply spinning the wheel on the lock and selecting the numbers at random. We might try the combination of 1 dozens of times over and over again until we finally get a random occurance of the correct combination (lets say in this case the #7.) Each attempt does not improve our odds of success, our odds of success remain at 1 in 10 for each try. Suddenly opening this lock is a lot more difficult and the time it will take us increases dramatically.
Now lets throw another problem into the mix, let us assume that our number of chances at finding the correct combination is limited, as it would be if one is using a pool of amino acids. You only have so many amino acids in the pool, and once they are used up on incorrect combinations they are no longer available to form correct ones. So lets give ourselves only three spins at the combination lock.
With only a 1 in 10 chance of finding the correct combination with each spin, our odds of opening the lock suddenly decrease even more dramatically, as we only have 3 random attempts to get it right. As you can see this has a drastic effect on a successful outcome only using a single combination with 10 possible variations.
Now imagine if you were using amino acids instead of a combination lock, and your number of combinations and variations increased dramatically. Your odds of success, even to form the most basic protien, get astronomical very, very quickly.
This is were we must begin our discussion of Statistical Impossiblity. According to the French mathematician Emile Borel, any occurence whose odds are worse than about 1 chance out of 10^50 power (10 followed by 50 zeros) the odds of such an occurence are so low that one can reasonable conclude that it is a statistical impossibility. It simply will never happen. When one considers that 10^50 power is about equal to the number of atoms that make up our entire planet, I'd say Borel's hypothesis is probably pretty reasonable. Imagine the odds of having someone pick out a single atom from the entire earth and having you properly guess which one it happens to be, and I think you'll agree with me that what your looking at is pretty much impossible.
So, once we exceed the odds of 1 chance in 10^50 it's reasonable to assume that our task of combining amino acids into usable protiens pretty much becomes an impossible one.
Protiens are made of amino acids, and science shows us that there are approximately 20 different amino acids that are used to build protiens. These amino acids form themselves into chains (or polymers) that combine to form proteins. The simpilest protein is made of a chain of 5 such amino acids. So to form the simplest protien assuming that all 20 amino acids were available in the "priomordial soup" from which life supposedly sprang would require a probability of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, or one possibility in 3,200,000. Imagine spinning 5 seperate combination dials numbers 0-19 each randomly until you come up with the correct combination, and that will give you a good feel for just how complicated this combination occuring randomly would be. But still odds that are approximately 1 in 3 million are still well within the bounds of statitistical probability, assuming you don't run out of amino acids. But the protien we just formed isn't complex enough to support life. Not yet. To do that we need a protein that is at least 50 amino acid chains, with the more complex protiens such as those found in the human body numbering in the neighborhood of 1,000 protien chains. Imagine spinning 50 dials randomly, all numbered 1-20, in the hopes of finding the correct combination. That's just what you need to build the most simplistic protien needed. To get up to the more complex ones your spinning as many as 1,000 dials, all numbered 1-20, hoping to hit just exactly the right combination.
But lets look at just the simpiliest one we need. We need to hit the right combination of 1 in 20 fifty times in order to get our desired result. The odds? one chance out of 10^65, well above the level of a statistical impossiblity already, and we haven't even discussed the size of our amino acid pool or the formation of more complex protiens that would require you to spin 1000 dials all numbered 1-20 in the hopes of hitting just the correct combination. Your odds? So far beyond even astronomical that you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery, not just once but 100 times in a row.
So couldn't these protiens "evolve"? Nope. These aren't living organisms, at least not yet. There just combinations of amino acids that do not grow, reproduce, adapt or evolve. If you can't get the correct sequence together for the protein, you can't even begin to create a living cell. There is not evolution, no life, nothing but a lot of amino acid chains combined in the wrong sequence that do you no good whatsoever.
These are the odds of life evolving as a function of random chance, the result of a lightning strike in a pool of amino acids. To even get your odds to the point where they are even beyond ludicrious you need to use an amino acid pool larger than the size of the Earth itself. They are far beyond the realm of statistical impossiblity when you look at even the formation of the most basic protien required to support life. When you look at the myriad number of protiens that would have had to be created as a function of random chance your odds increase to the point where you go beyond simply statistical impossibility. You get to the point where it would have required an amino acid pool larger than the size of our galaxy and so many failed combinations that to hit on the correct combination would probably take far longer than 15 billion years, which is older than the age of our known cosmos.
I simply see no way one can justify a theory of random chance design given the statistical probabilitys involved. It is simply impossible, many times over, for life to have simply began as a function of random chance. Some guiding force must have taken a hand in our creation. The only real debate is what form and manner that Creator or Creators takes, but that of course is a matter of faith rather than a matter of science.
[i]Submitted by Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
|
| |
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (9:56 am)
You wrote:
"My own view of the scriptures is that Gensis, while true, cannot be taken literally because one has to consider the audience. "
I agree with you on this one. Genesis is the collection of myths passed down from generation to generation orally at first. Of course you can't take these stories literally.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (10:04 am)
You wrote:
"So couldn't these protiens "evolve"? Nope. These aren't living organisms, at least not yet."
Once again you prove that you don't know what you are talking about. This is chemistry. Atoms with weak bonding will break into ions and fragmants when they are in solution. The Ph of the solution changes the binding. You can imagine the atoms and ions continually rearanging themselves. Add to this the principle that these molecules are constantly trying to find the lowest energy state which lends itself to crystalization and the constant changing temperature in the environment your probabilities are not just a combination of all the possible conbinations of atoms. Instead there are far fewer conbinations that lend itself to a more reasonable expectation.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (10:13 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
I never said anything about them being myths at all, so you obviously don't agree with "me" as it seems you never bother to actually read what I wrote beyond simply skimming it.
"This is chemistry. Atoms with weak bonding will break into ions and fragmants when they are in solution. "
Do some research on Amino Acid combinations Doc, your looking at a bit different situation than the atomic bonds you describe. Then look at the fact that the final argument doesn't even rely on the size of the amino acid pool required to prove random design is statistically impossible. Even disregarding the size of the amino acid pool completely you still have only one chance in 10^65 of getting even the simpiliest of protiens necessary to support life, which is far in excess of the 10^50 odds of statistical impossiblity.
Again we find you running off on tangents and not researching your arguments, as well as not responding to the true issues brought up in the posting.
Going to have to do better than this Doc, much better indeed.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (10:39 am)
Reply to: stepdad
"Do some research on Amino Acid combinations Doc,"
Hey, I do this stuff every day....
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (10:50 am)
Ok, your statistics is flawed in another way. You don't mention that a mole of material is 6.02X10^23. And On earth here we didn't have any life evolve before 1 billion years. Chemical reaction happen on the order of microseconds. So, over that billion years one mole of amino acids would react over 10^45 times. So, if the earth had about 10,000 moles of amino acids in solution we would get your 10^50 number. So, your really big numbers don't seem to far off. And, that doesn't take into account that you could be lucky and find the combinations earlier.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (11:26 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Sigh.. ok Doc, I'll give you credit for getting warmer. Not a lot warmer, granted, but warmer.
Ok, again, for the record, the numbers posted speak only to the probability of the combinations needed. The actual amount of material and time needed is not a function of the calculations, because in order to factor these in would require math that is a bit harder to explain than simple probability theory.
But since you seem absolutely determined to discuss the number of particles and speed of reactions as opposed to just the simple probability, here you go. The number 10^65 represents the probability of finding the correct combination of amino acids to form a protein that only contains 50 such chains, the simpilest protien needed to support life. That is assuming an unlimited number of amino acids to combine and an unlimited time frame in which to accomplish the task. Thus your "argument" is already rendered moot, because even assuming an unlimited amount of material and given an unlimited amount of time your odds on hitting the correct key sequence you need to form a single, simple protien is still far and above the odds of statistical impossibility, by almost 15 additional zeros. Those are really, really bad odds.
Now you add in the probabilities that in addition to this one, single protein forming you actually need hundreds of various protiens, all with worse odds of forming, and your odds of actually pulling of a life form that only uses 4 or 5 simple protiens go way beyond ridiculous, even assuming you have an infinite amount of particals and an infinite time for them to interact. For two such simple protiens to form requires two occurances, both at with odds of 1 out of 10^65. So your odds on both occuring become 1 out of 10^130. That means you would need to perform at least 10^130 different combinations or interactions between amino acids to be absolutely sure you could produce only two such protiens.
Now here is where your really big problem comes in. There are approximately 10^84 sub atomic particles in the known universe. These particles combine at a maximum rate of 10^20 interactions per second. The cosmos is approximately 10^17 seconds old (approximately 15 billion years). So, lets give you maximum benefit of the doubt and include all of the possible combinations of all of the subatomic particles from the very beginning of our universe. You come up with a possible number of 10^121 combinations.
So by now you probably would have been able to form a simple protien, and with a lot of luck maybe as many as two that contain only 50 amino acids each. The formation of more advanced protiens would be impossible at this stage, even assuming all your failed combinations are breaking back down into amino acids and not remaining as unusable protiens. Were not even talking just statistically impossible, but totally impossible, as you wouldn't have had enough time for them to combine yet. You'd need a few hundred billion more years to form a protozoa at this rate. Perhaps in a few hundred trillion years you might get a multicelled organism, again assuming your subatomic particles are all amino acids (they are not) and assuming they continue to break apart each time they form a protien that isn't usable (they don't).
Sorry Doc, the numbers for random chance just don't add up at all.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (11:45 am)
You wrote:
"That means you would need to perform at least 10^130 different combinations or interactions between amino acids to be absolutely sure you could produce only two such protiens. "
This is another completely false statement. You are implying here that you need to do every combination. However, there is more than one combination that will work. If fact there are quite a few. You can also have much longer sequeses with "junk" that will still allow for a positive result. Arguing statistics is not goin to work, because there is a finite probability that it can happen and any person can argue that it happened at the begining by chance. Even though, I have shown in my argument that it could happen in 1 billion years on average if 10,000 moles of amino acids were in solution. Obviously the PH and temperature of the solvent will change the equation. Of course there are many factors that could make this happen faster than 1 billion years, like more availible amino acids. 10,000 moles isn't really a lot considering the entire earth.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (11:47 am)
"The formation of more advanced protiens would be impossible at this stage, even assuming all your failed combinations are breaking back down into amino acids and not remaining as unusable protiens."
Actually this is another lie. Once some protiens have formed they are likely to act as templates for similar protiens and more bits could add on once the "seed" is created. Where is your science that says otherwise?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (11:50 am)
"Perhaps in a few hundred trillion years you might get a multicelled organism, "
This is assuming the worst case for every possibility. There is also the chance that a multicelled organism just coalessed from the atoms in the sea. Both probabilities are absurd. It is more likely somewhere in the middle, hence reality.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (11:59 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Lol.. ok, so your scientific proof is your opinion that my numbers are wrong. Hmm. .interesting. Any, well, you know, proof there?
Also, so far we've gotten up to talking about the formation of a single protein or at most two protiens of the simplest variety available. Considering the vast number of protiens used by complex organisms, the numbers just keep getting bigger, bigger and bigger, even if one assumes you don't need to run through every combination (which you don't, and which I stated earlier you don't) and even assuming you have an infinite amount of material and an infinite amount of time with which to preform this task. The numbers don't lie doc, there pretty evident in fact. I give you ever benefit of the doubt in the numbers, ever break I possibly can. Result? Random design is still so far beyond statistically impossible that it's ludicrious.
Your refutation? Well it consists of saying I'm wrong. Not showing us how, not offering any evidence, apparently your simple statement is to be accepted as proof positive.
Umm.. nahh.. don't think so. Numbers don't lie Doc. Yes, it is possible to manipulate statistics, but what I'm using here isn't really open to manipulation. It's just simple probability theory. If you have a combination lock that has 10 possible digits your odds in hitting the correct digit needed to open the lock is 1 in 10.
You can't manipulate that, or constrain your data set to get a desired result. It's cut and dried, straight forward stuff. Not like saying 9 out of 10 dentists prefer something, even though your sample of 100 dentists only got nine positive repsonses, then manipulating your data set to say that of the 10 dentist you chose in your dataset 9 responded positively. No, this is straight probability theory here, no manipulation possible. The probability of getting the right combination to a lock with a 10 digit dial that only requires 1 digit for it's combination is 1 in 10.
The probablity of forming a single chain of 50 amino acids required to form the simpilest of protiens is 10^65.
The probablity of two such different protiens forming is 10^130.
The probablity of all of the known protiens here on earth needed to sustain life of forming are so outlandish that it defies description. Even giving your theory every benefit of the doubt, unlimited amino acid and an unlimited time frame to draw on, the result is an impossiblity, both statistically and otherwise.
But hey, you have iron clad scientific evidence to the contrary right? Which consists of what, your statement that it is possible? Sorry Doc, again its going to require a whole lot more than that.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (12:15 pm)
You wrote:
"The probablity of forming a single chain of 50 amino acids required to form the simpilest of protiens is 10^65.
The probablity of two such different protiens forming is 10^130."
Your reasoning here is flawed. If you are saying that there is a one out of 10^65 chance of forming a protein that means that you believe that all the other combinations will not work. However, those other combinations are different proteins. So, when you are saying that there is 10^130 chance of forming two proteins the reasoning breaks down. That other protein would have been formed as part of the other combinations. So, the probability of forming those two different proteins is actually just as likely. Multiplying the probabilities together is wrong. Actually, the way to figure the probabilities out would be to find all the viable combinations. Then, divide by the number of combinations. In the first assumption you claim that there is only one possible combination. If there is another one then the probability becomes 5 X 10^64. However the true number would be based on the true number.
You are also ingnoring the fact that creating the first protein acts like a "seed" like a crystal acts as a "seed" to get other similar proteins to form.
If you want proof, then take an organic chemistry class. This is well known. You wouldn't have many of the drugs you have today if this wasn't true.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (12:34 pm)
BTW, your assumption that longer protein chains would be more difficult to form does not hold water. As the molecule gets larger the protein doesn't need to be exact. If you remember from your biochem class the proteins hook together and then unhook as a method to make other proteins. the key and the hole need to match, but the unused part of the molecule could be anything. So, this means that there are many many proteins that could "boot strap" the life process. Once the process is begun the key and the hole shapes are required, and different protein could fill the void. Eventually the most easily made protein will be most common. The chemical process is the precursor to the evolution process. Molecules do not need to be alive for evolution type processes to take place. All that need to be in place is the first catalyst type reaction.
Check a biochem text book if you need evidence.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (12:44 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
But now your discussing the next step, protiens as opposed to amino acids. First we have to get the amino acids to combine to form the protiens, then we can start a bootstrap process - but where not that far along yet.
This, just FYI, is the final response you will recieve until the apology you owe me is forthcoming. You are always allowed to disagree with me on any topic you wish. You are not allowed to treat me with so much disrespect that you call me a liar not once, but twice. I expect an apology from you *SPECIFICALLY* to address this and we are done conversing until the apology is recieved. I hope that is clear enough.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.04.04 (9:40 pm)
You might be interested in reading what Borel himself had to say about this. (Long story short: Borel himself says that his "Law" doesn't apply here.)
From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:
The Problem of Life.
" In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.
When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?
It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter ***that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.***
Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance."
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.06.04 (7:17 am)
"It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter ***that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.***"
But herein lies the rub. If we are a product of random chance and not a function of design, why such an incredibly incomplete fossil record?
Where are the hundreds of thousands of evolutionary "missteps"? Where are all of those species that began with rudimentary eye structures you mention? Sure, there are a few species today that still have them, but without a direct evolutionary descendent of homosapiens and the snail, or the slug, what are we left with?
A huge assumption that at some point either a snail/slug like creature began branching out various branches of the evolutionary tree, and that most if not all organisms developed from a small number of "root species". Ok, feasible, but if this is the case where are all the rest of the fossils? Where are the fossils of these root species, or any of the hundreds of branches it would take to develop all of the new species from them?
Or one could conclude that there was a wide variety of life to begin with and that thus the branching effect is much less. But again, where is this indicated in the fossil record? We have little to now evidence of it at all. All we possess is some fossilized evidence of species that did exist at one time but are now extinct. Sure, we have a lot of fossils of Tyrannsaurus Rex.. but not a single fossil of something that "evolved" into it. Why do we have 50-100 fossils of the same species, and absolutely no fossils of the species from which it supposedly evolved "from"?
Same with man. Ok, if evolution is a function of random mutation and natural selection, why has it been so incredibly long since man supposedly "evolved"?
Sure, we've advanced technologically as a society. But how long has it been since our last evolutionary step?
Sure, we see a few mutations of our species, but we generally call these "birth defects". How long has it been since we have documented evidence of a random, helpful mutation?
If evolution is driven only by random mutation and natural selection, I can see where natural selection might not end in a random mutation being widespread once a population reaches a certain size.
But the question becomes, where is the random mutation? We have a population in the billions. One would think you'd see some random mutations over time, some benefiical and some not.
So where are they?
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.06.04 (12:18 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"But herein lies the rub. If we are a product of random chance and not a function of design, why such an incredibly incomplete fossil record?"
No--I'll keep playing your game after you tell me how you reconcile your statements here with what Borel said below:
Stepdad: "This is were we must begin our discussion of Statistical Impossiblity. According to the French mathematician Emile Borel ... I simply see no way one can justify a theory of random chance design given the statistical probabilitys involved. It is simply impossible, many times over, for life to have simply began as a function of random chance."
Now contrast that with Borel himself stating, "...the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is ***too complex for us to be able to calculate*** its order of magnitude. ... It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance. ... At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also *governed* [thus not random] by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit. ... it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance."
Your "most compelling" evidence of proof that there must be a Creator is based on the principles of a man who states his principle IS NOT APPLICABLE to this situation. How do you answer that?
posted by: newbie
post date: 12.06.04 (8:32 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
Stepdad wanted a mutation example, here it is.
Muscular Baby Has Genetic Mutation.
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=519696
posted by: newbie
post date: 12.06.04 (8:33 pm)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
Stepdad wanted a mutation example, here it is.
Muscular Baby Has Genetic Mutation.
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=519696
posted by: newbie
post date: 12.06.04 (8:34 pm)
Here is your example.
Muscular Baby Has Genetic Mutation.
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=519696
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.08.04 (4:46 am)
Reply to: stepson
One example in a population of billions? At that rate random mutation really would never account for advancements in evolution. Starting to see the problem?
In order for a species to "evolve" the random mutation has to be passed along to the offspring. However, if you only have a small number of random mutations that are beneficial in a huge population they will never really be able to significantly impact the population as a whole.
In order to do so, you would need a much higher incident of mutation, or an exterior cause that would prevent the rest of the population that did not possess this mutation to survive.
If your rate of incident on beneficial mutation is only a few out of a population of billions, then evolution itself becomes an unworkalbe theory. The odds that any species would be able to "evolve" after their population reaches an appreciable size becomes difficult if not down right impossible.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.08.04 (5:33 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
Personally I thought the answer was pretty self-explanatory but I'll be more than happy to answer it fully.
Emile Borel was born in 1871 and died in 1956. Our scientific understanding of biology, of how amino acids combine to form protiens and how those protiens combine to form cells was a lot more limited in Borel's day than it is now. It's a bit hard to calculate simple probabilities without that information.
No are the calculations presented precise, do they take into account every variable? No, there are somethings that they do not account for. However those things add more complexity and thus increase the odds against random creation, they do not decrease them. The odds presented are the best case scenario odds for random creation, and as you can see those odds are very, very bad indeed.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.08.04 (1:58 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"Personally I thought the answer was pretty self-explanatory..."
Well, I didn't find it self-explanatory because you jumped from probabilities to fossils:
"But herein lies the rub. If we are a product of random chance and not a function of design, why such an incredibly incomplete fossil record?"
And now we're back to probablilities. So what was it that we learned between 1956 and "now" (this probabilities argument has been around a while. As an aside, why do you think it is that it's not widely accepted by scientists?) that suddenly allows this calculation? FOr that matter, what did we learn that *reversed* Borel's statement? Because he's stating that they *already knew* properties of nature that "prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance."
"It's a bit hard to calculate simple probabilities without that information."
Of course, this is an extremly complicated situation, which is exactly what Borel was saying and why a simple probability can't be used for an extremly complicated situation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
"Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"
"Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions."
|
|
|
