From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability / Attrition
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:30:17 GMT

In article <8007@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
writes:
> David Rice writes:
> >What is the probability of a "random" mutation being benificial to an
> >organism? What is the probability of the same mutation being benificial to a
> >population of that species? We know that it is -probable- to occur, because
> >observation shows us that it DOES occured--- but what are the probabilities
> >involved?
>  
> >(Beneficial equals an improved ability to survive or out-reproduce
> >competing organisms.)
>  
> >I would think the questions are far too complex for humans to calculate. So
> >why do some Creationists claim they know the probabilities? I doubt if there
> >are any Creationists who are all-powerful and all-knowing; therefore the
> >figures they assert are bogus.
> 
> I doubt that evolutionists are any more all-powerful and all-knowing than
> creationists. :-)  If we don't know the probabilities, the evolutionary
> claims that the probabilities are high (perhaps high enough to be called
> "certain") are just as bogus as creationist claims that the probabilities are
> low.

  ARGH!!!  There are _no_ evolutionary claims that these probabilities are "high
(perhaps high enough to be called "certain")"!!!

  The claims are that they are not zero.  Selection ensures that the bad
mutations go away (die out) while the good ones propogate.  There is no claim
whatsoever to the likelyhood beyond "not zero".  Even if it is zero, evolution
isn't in trouble unless it was _always_ zero.

  Bob, you have been on this system far longer than I have, why do you still
misstate basic principles in evolutionary biology?  This isn't even one of those
hard to understand ones, or esoteric concepts, but a rather simple concept.

  Look I used to make test instruments for the railroad, so maybe this example
from when I was setting blinker rates on crossings will help.

  Setting up the test equipment for rail road crossing blinkers is a real pain. 
Not only that, but when you make adjustments to the blinkers, someone will often
run off with your test equipment while your back is turned.  If this happens the
test equipment has to be set up all over again.  My solution was simple:

  When I had to set 30 blinker circuits to the proper frequency, I would start
by putting them all at some different random settings.  I would then test them
all, and keep track of which blinker circuit was closest to the correct rate.  I
would then adjust all of the other systems to settings close to that one, but
all a little bit different (there were 12 potentiometers to adjust).

  Then I would retest them all again, keeping track of which one was the best so
far, and repeat.  Once I had a circuit within the legal tolerance, I would
adjust the others to match, and do a final test (watch out for differences do to
bad soldering).

  By using this method I could set 12 different potentiometers to the correct
frequency in 3 or 4 tests.  Others would have to keep an eye on their equipment
as they adjusted one individually 10 or 12 times.  So while my testing phase was
a little longer, overall I had the blinkers set faster because the equipment
only needed to be set up 3 or 4 times.

  This is how evolution works.  Sure, near the end most of the variation I
introduced caused the blinkers to be worse, but all I needed was one better
blinker to improve the accuracy of the settings for all of them.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____