From: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: dawkins/_the selfish
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:42:08 EST
Reply-To: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In <1992Aug12.162243.14680#hemlock.cray.com>, robd@cherry09 (Robert
Derrick) writes:

>What is the possibility of a human evolving from a primal sea of
>amoeba, over 4.5 billion years?  Astronomical.  But not being an
>information scientist of the stature of Golay, I am not able to
>calculate the exact number.  But I bet it is huge!
>
>But, in a related question, what is the probability that a human
>evolved from the primal muck?  If you think it is the same answer as
>the previous probability question, then you don't understand probability.

Actually, I believe you're about to misapply certainty.  I can see exactly
what you're getting at, but dollars to doughnuts you're going to end up in
circular reasoning when it comes to abiogenesis and human evolution:

>No, I am afraid I must burst the bubble.  Please put your adulation
>back in your pockets.  No, this number that I rolled is simply one
>number of G numbers I could have rolled.  I had to roll one of them,
>and so, the probability that I would roll this one was 1 in G, before
>I rolled.  This represented my uncertainty about the system, and
>so, were I to try to predict this number a priori would have been
>a miracle.  But after the fact, it becomes a fact, a done deed,
>an event that has really occurred in space/time, and although
>the chance of that exact number occurring was effectly zero, the
>chance that it did occur was and is 1.
>
>TAE's seem to think that after the fact, the original odds still
>apply.  And it just ain't so, it don't work that'a'way.  However
>unlikely a thing that happens is, it don't matter now, because it
>did happen.  I rolled a number that was impossible to roll, unless
>I chose to disdain ignorance.  And disdain it I did.

Here's one problem (among many, but I'm already days late with this reply
and I'm rushing):  Only that one chance among 10^whatever will in this
model produce Life As We Know It.  The others produce nothing, nada.  Not
just here, but anywhere in the universe.  The universe is a big place, but
not big enough to beat exponents that big (do you have any remote grasp on
how BIG those numbers are??  -- I don't).  So it still comes back to the
claim that that one unique chance (an inherently completely different
result from any of the others, so while all the others are `just another
sequence' this one is not) must have been the one to happen, else we
wouldn't be here discussing it.

By saying, "you had to roll one of those combos," what you're really
saying is that abiogenesis/evolution must have happened because we're
here.  `Since we exist, the probability becomes 1.'  However, let's back
up a step and summarise the history of the theory:

(A) 1.  It is observed that life exists.
(B) 2.  Abiogenesis/evolution is proposed as a theory to explain how
        that life came into existence.
    3.  It is observed that the theory in (2) is exceedingly improbable,
        and in fact mathematically impossible.
    4.  It is claimed that, since the life exists, therefore no matter
        how improbable the theory in (2), it must have happened.

Do you see why I sincerely see this as circular reasoning?  You are using
what you're trying to explain (1) as proof!  Besides that, given A is
true, then "B -> A" does NOT imply "~B -> ~A", which is the basis for your
argument whether you state it in those terms or not.  (BTW, I give up...
what's a TAE, besides a TLA?  :-)

>PPS: If the probability of rolling a 6 on one die is 1 in 6, then if
> I roll a pair of dice, the probability of getting at least one
>        6 will double, which is 2 in 6, or 1/3.  Right, you just add the
> probabilities together.  So, let's see, three dice, I
> get 3 in 6 chances of getting at least one 6, right?  Ok
[more of the same]
> Isn't lying with probability fun?

Sometimes, but it's bad math.  :-) As you no doubt know, if you roll two
dice, the probability of getting at least one six DOESN'T double to 2/6:

    P( at least one 6 ) = 1 - P( no 6's ) = 1 - (5/6)^2 = 0.306 < 0.333

(I should stop doing even simple math late at night because I'm bound to
make a stupid error sooner or later, and then everyone'll jump on me...)

But don't get the wrong impression:  I'm not flaming, I'm just discussing
and I'm thoroughly enjoying this!  Looking forward to the reply...

Herb

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| The optimist believes that we live in the best of all possible worlds.      |
| The pessimist fears that this is true.                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|UUCP:canrem!herb.sutter INTERNET:herb.sutter@canrem.com COMPUSERVE:70312,1233|
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

:DeLuxe2 1.12 #9091 * File not found.  Should I fake it? (Y/N)
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044