The Probability Argument Returns

[Ted C]

Some guy with a blog called "Intelligent Designer" read an article on my blog and posted what he thinks to be a crushing rebuttal. I haven't gotten around to writing a response yet, but you guys will probably find it amusing.

http://randystimpson.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ation.html

[Kanastrous]

What seems to be flawed is the premise that a random letter generator is analogous to physical processes that are inherently ordered.

[Traveller]

Whats up with the Ken Miller video?, all he does is say, it's funny and even Ken Miller gets in wrong. Zero attempt to demonstrate why he (thinks) that is the case. It does not help that that clip focuses only one that one point for 47 whole seconds, devoid of any larger context. Of course the point he makes is clear enough if you heard the argument before.

A variation on this type of rock solid creationist logic.

Creationist: The analogy you used is flawed and you got it all wrong.
Scientist: How so?
Creationist: Look it just is ok.
Scientist: Would you mind elaborateing on that at all?
Creationist: I just did.

Probability arguments are so weak but some creationists just seem to love them. What the odds of getting hit by lightening, winning the lottery with a 1 dollar ticket, being crowned the king of Spain? Even their mathematical prodigy(cough) bill Dembski draws conclusions and argurments that real mathematcians have taken apart and found wanting. If you want some long odds, try to calculate the odds of encountering an honest creationist.

[TheLostVikings]

I saw his life-cant-possible-occur-randomly argument and raised him the monkeys-with-trypewriters response.

Because adding monkeys make everything better

[montypython]

Even religious philosophies that don't espouse the intelligent creator idea fall into the trap of assuming an intrinsic plan controls the totality of existence, so even those types of ideas get demolished by Dawkin's points on probability and evolution.

[Ted C]

Well, I've posted my reply...

http://runolfr.blogspot.com/2009/03/inc ... futed.html

[Count Dooku]

As probability pertains specifically to evolution, I have a great quote from two scientists (great book, too):

Page 68 of "Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent" by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata

"We start with a few simple calculations. The development from a fertilized egg to a human adult body entails, as was already mentioned, approximately 10^14 cell divisions. Every division is preceded by the replication of all the DNA molecules in the cell and in each replication, uncorrected copying errors occur at a rate of one error per 10^9 incorporated nucleotides. Since a human cell contains 3 x 10^9 nucleotide pairs, on average 12 copying erros occur during the replication of the DNA before each cell division. Mutations preceding most of the 10^14 divisions are of no consequence for evolution and are therefore irrelevant for our purpose. They are in somatic (and hence constitute somatic mutations) which die before or at the time of the individual's demise and the mutations disappear with them. Somatic mutations may profoundly influence the fate of an individual, for example by contributing to the development of cancer, but since they are not passed on to the progeny, their effect is restricted to a single individual. Mutations in the germ cells or in their progenitors, on the other hand, are of interest to us, because they are potential genealogical markers.
"Female and male germ cells differ in the number of mutations they accumulate before the participate in fertilization. From the human zygote to a mature egg cell, 24 cell divisions are necessary. Since cells accumulate mutations at a rate of siz per division, the mature egg cell gathers (24)(6) = 144 mutations that were not present in the zygote. Mutations that occurred in earlier divisions are shared by the different egg cells, whereas those that occurred in earlier divisions are shared by the different egg cells, whereas those that occurred just before maturation distinguish one egg cell from another. In contrast to eggs, which arise from progenitors that stop dividing at the time of birth, progenitors of sperm cells continue dividing throughout the entire lifetime of the male. The number of mutations a sperm cell has accumulated therefore depends on the age of the male. A sperm cell produced by a 25-year-old male, for example, is separated from the zygote by 312 cell divisions and has therefore accumulated (312)(60 = 1872 mutations. A sperm cell of a 50-year-old male is the product of approximately 887 cell divisions and hence has accumulated (887)(6) = 5322 mutations."

Remember that this is just one organism we're talking about. A sufficiently large population could have ten-of-thousands of individuals, and one new generation could have millions of new mutations. Now, remember also that you carry the mutations of your ancestors, so a given individual could carry several million mutations that are seemingly benign, but when the selective pressure(s) change, any one of the millions of mutations could potentially be extraordinarily important to survival. Now, with each individual carrying millions of mutations, and you have a population of tens-of-thousands, what are the population's chance of having sufficient individuals who have the mutation(s) necessary to survive the changing selective pressure(s). They're damn good. The probability argument is fantastic mathematical evidence in favor of evolution, not against it.