Dice vs. evolution

[eMTee]

How do you handle the 1,000,000 dice comparison with evolution?

[Phi for All]

Evolution uses loaded dice. While it doesn't guarantee certain outcomes, it makes them more probable.

 

Intelligent Design and Evolution.

[Sisyphus]

What's the 1,000,000 dice comparison?

[the tree]

It's the idea that the probability of life spontainiously forming is 1 in 6 million or so. It's a silly idea because the closer something is to a self replicator, the less likely it is to fall apart and be something else¹.

 

1) That was the worst explination I've ever given, ever.

[swansont]

Then the analysis is fatally flawed. I would handle the comparison by saying something like, "Your analysis is fatally flawed." And then explain that evolution is not random, though it contains random elements.

[bascule]

It's the idea that the probability of life spontainiously forming is 1 in 6 million or so.

 

Where do their numbers come from?

[the tree]

Where do their numbers come from?

Either the Great Biologist In The Sky or thier imaginations I'd guess.

[bascule]

Hmm, here's some equally retarded attempts to use statistics to "disprove" evolution:

 

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=590

 

Since random events within nature are supposed to be responsible for the spontaneous beginning of life and of all living things, let’s evaluate “randomness.” The tool used to evaluate randomness is the mathematical concept of probability.

 

The basic principle of probability is simple: If you have a coin with two sides, heads and tails, and toss it into the air, each side has a 50 percent chance of being on the top when the coin lands. This is the probability of a random event limited by two possible outcomes.

 

Now, imagine a pair of four-sided dice. The probability of any certain side landing in the bottom position when one of the pair is tossed is one in four, or 25 percent. Add the second of the pair, and there are 16 possible combinations (four times four). Add a third and there are 64 possible combinations (four times four times four). The probability of getting any certain combination in one toss of three dice would be 64 to one. The more possible combinations, the less the probability of any one specific result.

 

Evolution is hypothesized to occur when there is an alteration to the genetic material of a plant or animal, and the change produces offspring with a better chance to survive. In animals, the changes take place in the genome, the genetic material of the sperm or egg cells of a parent, and are passed on to the next generation.

 

In the human genome, there are four possible combinations of amino acids called nucleotides, but, instead of three dice, there are 3.2 billion nucleotides. The possible combinations would be four times four times four—repeatedly multiplying by four a total of 3.2 billion times.

 

The Human Genome Project, a joint international effort to unravel the structure of genetic material of humans, has determined that a genetic mutation of one billionth of a genome is always fatal. That means for a human, a random change of three nucleotides is fatal, thereby ending any further possibility of evolution for that individual’s offspring.

 

Evolutionists claim that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to man, with a difference of about 48 million nucleotides. This means at least 48 million random events must have occurred in exactly the right order for the evolutionary gap between man and his hypothesized common ancestor with chimpanzee to have been spanned. Three changes in the genome during one generation would be fatal and stop the process. Therefore this number of changes would require a minimum of 24 million generations to achieve, assuming two changes happened during each generation.

 

These changes must happen in exactly the proper order, and each step must produce either no noticeable change or provide the offspring with some sort of advantage. Any negative change would stop or prolong the process. Each change must occur in a gene that is passed on to an offspring, and the offspring must survive and must undergo some further sort of change and have offspring and so on for each of the 48 million genetic changes.

 

Next, since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides in the human genome, the probability of one particular nucleotide being altered is 3.2 billion to one. To determine the mathematical probability of the genetic changes necessary for the hypothesized “evolution” between chimps and people, it is necessary to multiply 3.2 billion times 48 million.

 

The probability against the evolution from a common ancestor with chimps to modern man, using these figures, is 153 quadrillion (153 followed by 15 zeros) to one.

 

The scope of 153 quadrillion is incomprehensible. To illustrate the size of this number: If one number is counted every second (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), it would take over 200 million years longer than the estimated age of the Earth to reach 153 quadrillion.

 

Though this number seems mind-boggling, it is only the tip of the iceberg. This example assumes all changes to genetic material would be positive when, in reality, fewer than 1 percent of genetic changes are beneficial. This example assumes each offspring would be successful in producing more offspring and that each generation would have two genetic “improvements.” It does not include any of the factors like mortality of offspring, unsuccessful reproductive attempts, the order of changes and many more variables, each of which would increase the odds against evolution by millions of times.

 

If a change anywhere in the chain of events proves to be detrimental, the entire process comes to a halt. For example, if a saber-tooth tiger eats one of the young prehistoric genetically altered monkey-men before it becomes a parent, the process is interrupted—the entire chain of events leading to that child comes to an end.

 

This represents only the changes that must occur starting with the supposed common ancestor of men and chimps and ending with the first modern man. What about the number of changes necessary to get from the first single cell, which is hypothesized to have taken life in the primordial ooze, until it evolved into this hypothetical chimp-like pre-man?

 

Here’s a better question: How many multiple millions of times greater would be the probability against such “evolution”?

[Sisyphus]

Although the premise, the logic, and the conclusion are all ridiculously flawed, this general idea does illustrate how unlikely an alien lifeform that is anything like us would be. That is, virtually impossible. And yet, all Superman has to do to blend in is put on a pair of glasses...

[Phi for All]

From The Trumpet: If one number is counted every second (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), it would take over 200 million years longer than the estimated age of the Earth to reach 153 quadrillion.

Ooooh, a big scary number! IDers can be such weenies.

 

If the estimated age of the earth is only 6000 years, what's the big deal?

[Animal]

I grew up in church and in a christian family (two pastors for uncles..) and I don't know how many times I heard that crap about how it's more likely for a tornado to pass over a junk yard and spit out a 747 than it is for life to begin spontanteously. (which I think is stupid because Creation is nothing more than spontaneous generation plus bit of magic) Argh!

 

At least spontaneous generation and evolution is probable. What about the likelyhood that humans were formed from mud and God's breath? I want to see those numbers.

[the tree]

Please avoid the thread necromancy.

[silkworm]

Well I haven't heard this one yet, which is strange. I'm sure I will in the future.

 

Has anyone seen the loaded equation that traces the 6 billion people on this planet back to 2 at about 6000 years ago?

 

It's charming.

[Animal]

What about Noah's family after the flood? Wouldn't they have repopulated the earth??

[bascule]

What about Noah's family after the flood? Wouldn't they have repopulated the earth??

 

There would've been genetic bottlenecks in all species Noah rescued aboard the ark...

[Edtharan]

There would've been genetic bottlenecks in all species Noah rescued aboard the ark...

 

And knowing about genetic drift and such we should be able to put a date on Noah's Flood. This could also give a confomeation to Noah's Flood as all these bottlenecks would have occured at the same time. Therefore if we end up with vastly different dates of these bottlenecks (or that they are non existant), then we have faily solid evidence that there was no flood.

[dirtyamerica]

Creation is nothing more than spontaneous generation plus bit of magic)

 

At least spontaneous generation and evolution is probable. What about the likelyhood that humans were formed from mud and God's breath?.

 

Science is the art of explaining how God created everything. The probability of life was a roll of the dice, depending on environmental factors and once life was created statistics went out the window. Evolution kicked in. This is how God formed life as we know it. The Bible is correct in many ways but it is misread because of the time and social background in which it was written. So don't take the Bible literally. But do take the most important things from it. Historical/scientific research backs many other events from the Bible. You just have to filter out certain religous(ironic?), social and technilogical interpretations.

[ecoli]

Science is the art of explaining how God created everything. The probability of life was a roll of the dice, depending on environmental factors and once life was created statistics went out the window. Evolution kicked in. This is how God formed life as we know it. The Bible is correct in many ways but it is misread because of the time and social background in which it was written. So don't take the Bible literally. But do take the most important things from it. Historical/scientific research backs many other events from the Bible. You just have to filter out certain religous(ironic?), social and technilogical interpretations.

 

Make sure you separate fact from beliefs. A simple "I believe" before you statement would have been alright. As it is, you are making statements that need to be backed up scientifically... impossible to do, of course.

[bascule]

Science is the art of explaining how God created everything.

 

Hmm, funny, I'm not seeing that definition here:

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:science

[2810712]

If god created life on earth science will still go to seek 'origin' of God [ life]! because that's what we call science...

 

Edtharan :

And knowing about genetic drift and such we should be able to put a date on Noah's Flood. This could also give a confomeation to Noah's Flood as all these bottlenecks would have occured at the same time. Therefore if we end up with vastly different dates of these bottlenecks (or that they are non existant), then we have faily solid evidence that there was no flood.

 

To predict it , we can compare the initial and final proteins [ & ofcourse , we need Noha's tongue for it!] & use Kimura's equation to predict the most probable time period between these two.

The DIce example is correct.

Existance of given form of life u need many things at a time - right place, right time, right [maaaany]structures, right [ maaaany] mechanisms, right [maaany] events

Even if one of them can be done in less no. of ways,total no. of ways this can be done is virtually infinity!!! And practically lesser, ofcourse! And out of those all permutations & combinations just a small set sustains life! so its just samilar to getting three or four when you use 1000000 dice & that too in every case!!!

 

 

hrushikesh

[Edtharan]

To predict it , we can compare the initial and final proteins [ & ofcourse , we need Noha's tongue for it!] & use Kimura's equation to predict the most probable time period between these two.

Actually if we use DNA from modern humans or animals, we can see how far apart they are (according to genetic drift). If Noah took 2 of every animal then we should be able to trace their lineage back to these 2 individuals. If time scale for differnet spiecies is very differnet to other spiecies then how can this be reconsiled with the Flood?

 

If god created life on earth science will still go to seek 'origin' of God [ life]! because that's what we call science...

And if God didn't (or doesn't exist)?

[2810712]

Actually if we use DNA from modern humans or animals, we can see how far apart they are (according to genetic drift). If Noah took 2 of every animal then we should be able to trace their lineage back to these 2 individuals. If time scale for differnet spiecies is very differnet to other spiecies then how can this be reconsiled with the Flood?

 

If you get wesay that NOah is the root genome then we should calculate howmany point mutations are there genome & then the time required to them can be predicted when we know the rate of % mutations ... & if DNAsfrom differnt organisms give different '--years ago' figure then we should conclude Noah thing is not yet proved. & WE DON"T HAVE NOAHhian genometo compare it with anything!!!

 

And if God didn't (or doesn't exist)?

 

What I meant by my scentense was we can't sit calm as science people ' date='by saying God did it... God(s) is/r to be proved & how they did it and God's origin and evolution should also be studied!!! Logos is all about this just queswtioning everything!

If God is not found tobe there, we would just see how life did evolve by itself...the no. of qs is reduced!

& should u have any more questions on what i said, I'llanswer them with chaw!

 

 

hrushikesh

[swansont]

The HLA gene in humans contains 59 alleles. Noah and family can account for 16, at most. You at least cannot have this and the common contention that all mutations are harmful be simultaneously true.