From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

> > "A typical initial condition for a model of the origin of life will
> > consist of an ensemble of possible initial states, such as one of the
> > thermodynamic ensembles of statistical mechanics or some simple
> > combination of these....Such an ensemble can be specified by a simple
> > equation or a brief set of equations." (Page 107)
> 
>   Please be real.  To model even the simplest organic reactions mathematicall
> is intractable.  (I assume p107 of the book you referred to earlier)

Well then the proposal of molecular evolution that life arose from
reactions between simple organic molecules cannot be demonstrated, can
it? And if it cannot be demonstrated, then all claims that it actually
occurred are premature, aren't they? And if one believes it occurred,
then one does so on faith alone, right?

> > > In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
> > > bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
> > > is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
> > 
> > Where did you get this "actual fact"?
> 
>   Uh, basic statistics would be my guess.  The above fact is true for all
> probabilities.  Or do you suggest that there are events with negative
> probability (or probability greater than 1)?
> 

No. But there are certainly sets of events in which each event has
probability 0<p<1. for example, the set of possible outcomes of the
single toss of a coin. As far as I know, the probability of any event
in this set is .5. Is it not so? Certainly this probability is bounded
by 0 and 1, but it is also bounded by .25 and .75!

Here is the point about the probability of evolution of living organisms
from non-living matter:

Why, in the alleged process of evolution, did extremely complex living
organisms evolve instead of only simple formless blobs of organic or
inorganic matter? After all, the laws of physics allow formless blobs to
exist, and even to undergo change, don't they? 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. 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. 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". 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?

Depending on how we estimate these probabilities (and this is the source
of the controversy), we can come up with an idea of how likely, or
unlikely, it is that natural selection is truly "blind", as is claimed
by most of the leading proponents of molecular evolution. 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. 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".

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

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins