From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:28:47 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

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

  It can be demonstrated, just not mathematically.  Mathematics isn't the only
way to demonstrate something.  There have been many very promising experiments
performed.
 
> > > > 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!

  These are all between 0 and 1, so the claim he made holds.

> 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?

  One of the necessary conditions for evolution is self replication.  Doing this
requires mechanisms.  "Formless blobs of organic or inorganic matter" do not
reproduce, and thus are not subject to evolution.

> 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.

  All you need is one living organism.  I have said this before, but perhaps I
wasn't completely clear.  Let us say you get one self-replicating molecule. 
Now, let us say that it is not very good at replicating itself: it takes a month
for this to happen.  Well then, starting with just one, after 100 years (a puny
amount of time geologically) we have over
1,721,838,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
000,000 of them.

> 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.

  You are assuming that it is the "information-theoretic complexity" which
measures the probability for something to appear.  Don't forget that once
something, anything, that can self replicate appears, there will be a whole lot
of them, and the processes of evolution will favor the ones that are good at
reproducing: those that have a very complex structure that allows better
reproduction.

  the complexity of a cell is not at issue, it is the complexity of anything
that can reproduce, and then take 1-product(1-pn) where pn is the probability of
self-duplicating system n forming.

> 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,

  There are very simple physical laws governing the motion of a drum head, but
the actual vibrations, with distortion etc, are very complex.  It takes zero
time for this to happen.  Do not confuse descriptive complexity with information
content simplicity.

> if the process were guided solely by a
> blind "natural selection".

  Natural selection is not blind.  This is almost an oxymoron.  Natural
selection causes selection based on the traits inherent in the thing being
selected.  There is no arbitrariness about it.

> 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?

  Wrong.  These will reflect the probability of those organisms appearing fully
formed.  the probability of the formation of life is, once again,
1-product(1-pn) where pn is the probability that life form n will appear.  The
product is taken over every _possible_ life form, even down to the simplest self
replicating molecules.  Even ones nobody has ever even heard about yet.

> 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.

  Name one.

> 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".

  Nobody has demonstrated "low probability", and you have shown no evidence that
the calculations you talk about are accurate, while presenting reams of evidence
they are not.

> Now, we admit that our determination of probabilities is based on
> premises which are falsifiable.

  So far every premis has been falsified.

> But this is also true of the
> probabilistic arguments of evolutionists.

  However, nobody has falsified them.

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

  So far there is no evidence they do, and much evidence they don't.

> You
> may indeed dispute our premises, and we are willing to consider your
> alternative ones. But of course you must state them first!

  These have been stated, but you either ignore there meaning, or attack them
based on a misreading.

> 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.

  No, a probabalistic argument is only dismissed as inherently fallicious when
it demonstrates itself so.  

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