Does probability refute evolution?

[Dan_Eastwood]

Does probability refute evolution?

@long quote from summary

However, arguments based on probability, statistics or information theory that have appeared in the creationist-intelligent design literature do not help unravel these questions, because these arguments have serious fallacies:

1. They presume that a given biomolecule came into existence “at random” via an all-at-once chance assemblage of atoms. But this is not the scientific hypothesis of how they formed. Instead, numerous published studies, covering many biomolecules, indicate that these biomolecules were the result of a long series of intermediate steps over the eons, each useful in a previous biological context. Thus all such “straw man” arguments are fatally flawed from the beginning.
2. They apply faulty mathematical reasoning, such as by ignoring the fact that a very wide range of biomolecules could perform a similar function to the given biomolecule. Thus the odds they provide against the formation of the given biomolecule are greatly exaggerated.
3. They ignore the fact that biological evolution is fundamentally not a purely “random” process – mutations may be random, but natural selection is far from random.
4. They ignore reams of evidence from the natural world that evolution can and often does produce highly improbable structures and features.
5. Some writers attempt to invoke advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but derive highly questionable results and misapply these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.
6. The creationist hypothesis of separate creation for each species does not resolve any probability paradoxes; instead it enormously magnifies them.

It is ironic that to the extent that such probability-based arguments have any validity at all, it is precisely the creationist hypothesis of separate, all-at-once complete formation that is falsified.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.php

[Robert_Byers]

I think probability concepts favour what is likely/possible and crush what is impossible or unlikely.
Therefore probability would work in defeating evolutionism if evolutionism must use math.
I see evolutionism using math because it calculates mutations effects.
So what is the probability chance mutations can turn a fish into a rhino?
Impossible or possible by probability!?

[Guy_Coe]

The mantra is “inevitable, given enough time.”
Of course, that’s the problem. There isn’t enough. The universe had a beginning at a finite point in time a mere 13.8 or so billion years ago… not enough time to account for the appearance of the first cell, let alone what you ask.
Notice the non-sequitur “turtles all the way down” nature of the claim:
“…these biomolecules were the result of a long series of intermediate steps over the eons, each useful in a previous biological context.”
There can’t be a “previous biological context” prior to abiogenesis.
Perhaps you meant “biochemical?” Same problem. At most, you could hypothesize about prebiotic chemical precursors that would eventually be replaced by biochemical ones.

[scd]

@Dan_Eastwood

They presume that a given biomolecule came into existence “at random”

actually the mutations are indeed random. and we know that every protein requires many amino acids for its minimal function. so basically till we get all of them in place this is indeed a random chance. therefore i think that the notion in the article is wrong.

[T.j_Runyon]

@scd

many amino acids

Is 11 many?

Small proteins: untapped area of potential biological importance

[scd]

actually even a single amino acid may be functional. i refer to most proteins, which contains more then 200 aa. in this case 40-50 aa will not help. so if you want to evolve such a protein it can be done by small steps.

[T.j_Runyon]

@scd

every protein

D’oh!

[T.j_Runyon]

@scd

so if you want to evolve such a protein it can be done by small steps.

Glad you’re coming around

[scd]

@T.j_Runyon

Glad you’re coming around

i actually meant “cant be done”.

@T.j_Runyon

D’oh!

yep. my mystake. i should say “most proteins” instead of “every protein”.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Robert_Byers

So what is the probability chance mutations can turn a fish into a rhino?
Impossible or possible by probability!?

The probability of a fish turning directly into a rhino is as good as zero. They only one making this claim are Creationists.

@Guy_Coe

Perhaps you meant “biochemical?” Same problem. At most, you could hypothesize about prebiotic chemical precursors that would eventually be replaced by biochemical ones.

It depends on where you draw that line for pre-biotic. We know that amino acids can form in non-biological (abiotic?) environments,

[Guy_Coe]

But, for example, Miller-Urey proved to be based upon erroneous assumptions as to the nature of the early earth’s atmosphere.
The spark discharge experiment didn’t actually mimic the conditions that existed back then.
You have to find the origin of those early amino acids extraterrestrially, as per Frederick Hoyle.
But then you still have the problem of homochirality to solve.
Just about the only phenomenon in nature that renders any significant amounts of non-racemic mixtures of such is the presence of cirularly-polarized light, as from certain interstellar environments.
We’re getting into the territory of dwindling odds, now.

[Dan_Eastwood]

I wasn’t referring to Miller-Urey in particular. There are a great number of studies showing how the components of life might assemble in prebiotic conditions - or even in space. This is one of the major focuses of research in abiogenesis. I could give you references to some of these if you like, but I really don’t think it is controversial.

If you wish to say we do not know exactly what the conditions were at the time and place abiogenesis occurred, that would be true, but we have some idea of that conditions were necessary.

[T_aquaticus]

@Guy_Coe

But, for example, Miller-Urey proved to be based upon erroneous assumptions as to the nature of the early earth’s atmosphere.

When the same experiments were done in updated models of Earth’s early atmosphere they also saw the formation of amino acids. In fact, there are reports that even RNA is produced in such experiments. A few references for you:

Despite Wells’s claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth’s early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.
Icon 1 — The Miller-Urey Experiment | National Center for Science Education

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/17/4306

@Guy_Coe

We’re getting into the territory of dwindling odds, now.

These odds don’t apply to the evolution of new proteins in living populations.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Guy_Coe

We’re getting into the territory of dwindling odds, now.

If you wish to make statements like that, then I feel very justified to ask you to show your calculations. I don’t mean that as a challenge, because it’s pretty clear that you haven’t done any calculations, so it’s silly to ask for them. If you mean you don’t think it is likely, that’s a fair statement. But If you are making any argument from incredulity based on math, then it’s fair to show the math and the assumption behind the argument.

/mathrant

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Guy_Coe

But, for example, Miller-Urey proved to be based upon erroneous assumptions as to the nature of the early earth’s atmosphere.

So are you claiming that no relevant work has been done since 1952?

Doesn’t your citation of Miller-Urey, from 1952, as an “example” unequivocally demonstrate that creationists and scientists are definitely not looking at the same evidence?

@Guy_Coe

We’re getting into the territory of dwindling odds, now.

Now? “Now” is not 1952, Guy.

In terms of probability, though, there’s nearly a 100% probability that any creationist pretending to have based her/his conclusion as based on the evidence will cite Miller-Urey whenever abiogenesis comes up.

The odds are pretty much zero that you’re going to really get into the evidence, though, right?

[Guy_Coe]

Did you guys completely miss my point that the “odds” were about homochirality?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Guy_Coe

Did you guys completely miss my point that the “odds” were about homochirality?

Yep. I still don’t see how it applies even when you point it out.

I’m sure homochirality adds to your sense of incredulity here, but I don’t see how it becomes a mathematical argument.

IOW, I’m not criticizing what you think I’m criticizing.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Guy_Coe

Did you guys completely miss my point that the “odds” were about homochirality?

I didn’t see your “odds of homochirality” calculations along with support for the assumptions you used. Can you please repost them? Thanks.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Timothy_Horton

I didn’t see your “odds of homochirality” calculations …

I’m pretty sure that Guy didn’t intend to be taken literally, so I can forgive his not having calculations. The question becomes, just what does he really mean?

[Guy_Coe]

How does any significant quantity of prebiotic molecules, or even amino acids, come to rest on the earth, so significantly skewed against a racemic mixture of forms, that life just happens to “assemble” homochirally? Without homochiral (dia)stereospecificity, you can’t build strands of information-bearing RNA or DNA. What proposals are there that wed this scenario with a significant bombardment by comets of the early earth, which traversed an area of space which was characterized by circularly-polarized light?
I don’t have to supply calculations to know how vanishingly small the odds are for this kind of homochiral scenario.
That’s why Hoyle himself had to call it “directed panspermia.”