From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:30:50 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <Dso3TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>Why, in the alleged process of evolution, did extremely complex living
>organisms evolve instead of only simple formless blobs of organic or
>inorganic matter?

Please, you mixing up abiogenesis [the origin of life from non-life]
with evolution [the change in life over time].  At this point the
entire content of your arguments is pertinent only to abiogenesis.

>After all, the laws of physics allow formless blobs to
>exist, and even to undergo change, don't they?

Yep. No argument here.  They also allow people and terminals to exist.

>Therefore, we can at
>least try to estimate the probability that evolution would have produced
>a universe full of nothing but varieties of non-living blobs instead of
>a universe with many different types of living organisms.

Now here you are using the word "evolution" in a rather general sense
and not in the sense that it is used in biology.  However no one can
argue that "we can at least try to estimate".  You can try to do anthing.

>We do this by
>applying methods of measuring information-theoretic complexity to the
>types of material configurations we observe in the world, including
>cellular proteins.

If we are going to use this method we need first to establish that this
is a valid measure.

>We reason that the more complex a material
>configuration, the more difficult or time consuming it would be for it
>to have been produced from very simple constituents under the action of
>(also simple) physical laws, if the process were guided solely by a
>blind "natural selection".

And this false assertion doesn't establish the validity of the approach.
Physical processes don't need to be guided; they simply happen.  Natural
selection is an observable consequence of the laws of physics in action.

More to the point, there is no direct correlation between the complexity
of a material configuration [assuming that you can define complexity to
begin with] and the time it takes to take form.

>If it turns out that most of the possible
>configurations allowed by the laws of physics are those which are
>formless blobs, and that only a tiny number of possible configurations
>allow for living organisms, then the probabilities that we estimate will
>reflect this fact. Right?

Oddly enough this conclusion is correct!  If we ignore the "formless blob"
bit and simply ask, what percentage of the extant material configurations
in the universe are living organisms then we get a very low number indeed!

As an approach to estimating the probability of abiogenesis, however, this
enumeration of configurations [which cannot be carried out] is of little
value, because it does take into account the alteration of configurations
over time.

One has to remember that the laws of physics imply that unequal probabilities
for different configurations.  To borrow an example from Asimov, we find
H2 and O2 molecules, and H2O molecules, and even HO molecules, but no
HO2 molecules.  Moreover the probability of occurrence of any given
configuration at a particular time is a function of the extant configurations
at that time.  Thus the calculation of probabilities based on an enumeration
of states is a priori incorrect.

>If we find
>that the probability of the evolution of living organisms is extremely
>tiny, so tiny that even given a time period far longer than the
>estimated age of the earth there is still only a miniscule chance of
>an organism appearing, then we are within reason (or within standard
>statistical confidence limits) to propose that something else has guided
>the progress of this evolution, something with purpose and intent, a
>not-so-blind watchmaker.

Again, are you talking about evolution or abiogenesis?  On one hand you
talk about an organism appearing [abiogenesis] and on the other you
refer to "the progress of this evolution".  It is difficult to follow
your argument when your language is so muddled.

There is a legitimate point here, such as it is.  If we have a set of
estimates for whether an event occurred within a given period of time
and the estimated probability is sufficiently low then we have to weigh
our confidence in external evidence for the event versus our confidence
in our estimates.  If the evidence for our estimates is more convincing
then we are warranted in concluding that the event did not occur.

In the case at hand my confidence in the probabilities that you cite
is very low.  

>Or, we would be within reason to propose that
>evolution itself is not the process that has led to the appearance of
>living organisms. Or, and this is what many evolutionists propose, that
>even though the odds were very small, nevertheless, evolution somehow
>"just happened".

Again, no one except the muddle headed has proposed that evolution led
to the appearance of life.

However it is true that some people arguing for abiogenesis have made
the "it must have happened no matter how small the odds" error.

>Now, we admit that our determination of probabilities is based on
>premises which are falsifiable. But this is also true of the
>probabilistic arguments of evolutionists.

Permit me to observe that I have grave doubts that you have any notion
of what "probabilistic arguments" are used in evolutionary theory.

>However, if it can be shown
>that our conclusions follow from our premises, then we have a proof.

Marvelous!! You have just given a definition for proof. 

>You
>may indeed dispute our premises, and we are willing to consider your
>alternative ones. But of course you must state them first! If you simply
>wish to dismiss all probabilistic arguments as too vague or inherently
>fallacious, then I don't see how we can get much accomplished by all
>this posting back and forth.

Who said that there was any expectation of getting much accomplished?

You are making the assertion that there is a specific set of calculations
that gave a legitimate estimate of the probability of abiogenesis as
being 1e-15000.  I am making the assertion that one can indeed calculate
the probability of specific event sequences occurring but that it is not
possible (as of this writing) to make a legitimate estimate of probability
of abiogenesis.

I also make the assertion that all calculations that purport to establish
this probability that I have obvious flaws.  From the evidence at hand
the calculations you refer to are similarly flawed [I allow for the
possibility that the work itself is correct, but that you are incapable
of presenting it coherently.]
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins