Statistical Argument Against Evolution

[swansont]

I want to hear what you have to say about this. So what are you going to explain?

 

Before you answer...

 

Suppose that i give you a bag with 52 cards in it' date=' a normal deck. And you take out 51 cards. I then ask you what is the probability that the card still inside the bag is the ace of spades. You can look at all 51 cards at your liesure. If you are truly certain that all 52 cards of a normal deck went into the bag, because you put them in yourself, then certainly you can figure out whether or not the ace of spades is still in the bag. In fact, you could tell me exactly what card is in the bag, with no uncertainty. So I still see human certainty as obeying binary logic.[/quote']

 

Once again you have constructed a specific scenario that is narrowly defined. You can't extrapolate that to all scenarios.

[Xavier]

If I may...

 

Johnny5 has indeed constructed a specific scenario in which certainty is binary.

And he has, I believe, demonstrated by example that any scenario can be broken down into a position where there is a single choice to which a probabilty and confidence level might be assigned but which can only have a certainty of 1 (certain) or of <1 (uncertain) - a binary state.

However, in so doing the scenarios have moved too far from the real world. It is ironic that Johnny5 stresses "human certainty" for it is precisely our human abilities (or possibly our logical disability) that renders us all but capable of refining a real situation to its logical series of single choices.

By way of illustration, I ask you to consider your thoughts as Johnny5 first described the 'swans in a bag' scenario. First, we know that swans are, in general, white and presume that Johnny5 also knows this but we are also aware that this is a thought experiment in statistics so we are half expecting an improbable event to occur. Therefore, we are less surprised than we 'should' be when the statistically unlikely black swan makes its appearance. On the other hand (and this is want I was thinking) as we all know that swans are white and his style appears to be edging us towards wondering whether he is going to throw in a black swan I was quite sure that the last swan was white and I'd call his bluff. So he double-bluffed and I got caught out.

The infamous question is now become a very complex one to answer - more complex than I could process in a conscious, logical way in the time available so I used instinct, a hunch, experience, guesstimation - call it what you will and then washed it through that famously inaccurate human ability to analyse risk and felt quite certain that I 'knew' the (wrong) answer. If I was closely questioned in a rigorous debate about whether I was really, reallly certain I would have to admit that I was not BUT I might wel have acted on the information as if I was certain.

The doomsday scenario echos this clearly; the world could end tomorrow but we don't act on that information because..well, what could you do about it? (in fact, we do act on it in small ways, taking out insurance and making wills and so on and these things are just part of 'normal life', that is a set of simplified rules to follow that stop us from the need to consider thousands of tiny risks that we can't or don't want to rationally consider. The religious ban on pig-meat due, it is suggested, an increased incidence of disease passed on through this means long ago is an example of a rule that stopped those people from having to worry about a small threat, so much so that the original reason for the rule is long forgotten.

 

So I think this discussion boils down to semantics. Humans feel different levels of 'certainty' based on the risk and reward, social factors associated with the presentation of the event, attention span, our inbuilt difficulty in negative statements and overeager pattern recognition. The strict definition of certainty can only be used logically as in the experiential world Nothing is Absolutely Certain and the word is meaningless. To use the word 'certainty' in alliance with 'human' implies the meaining "certain enough that I don't think that I will lose out by acting as if this is certain."

[Ophiolite]

Suppose that i give you a bag with 52 cards in it, a normal deck. And you take out 51 cards. I then ask you what is the probability that the card still inside the bag is the ace of spades. You can look at all 51 cards at your liesure. If you are truly certain that all 52 cards of a normal deck went into the bag, because you put them in yourself, then certainly you can figure out whether or not the ace of spades is still in the bag. In fact, you could tell me exactly what card is in the bag, with no uncertainty. So I still see human certainty as obeying binary logic.

And what is the situation if there are two cards left in the sack? Yes, I can be certain, given the conditions you have specified, that one of the two cards is the ace of spades. I am uncertain as to whether the next card drawn from the sack will be the ace of spades. In non-mathematical terms I think it is quite possible that next card drawn will be the ace of spades, but equally I will not be surprised if it something else.

In contrast, at the start of this exercise, if you had asked me on drawing the first card, did I think it would be the the ace of spades, I should have replied 'that is quite unliklely'.

My certainty of the ace of spades being drawn varies througout the experiment from 'quite unlikely' to 'quite possible'. If we put that back in maths terms then certainty/uncertainty is seen clearly not to be a binary quantity.

[Joshua]

I think maybe the name of this string should be changed! I'll start another about mathematics and evolution.

[Void]

I am not sure if this is what Johnny5 orginally stated, but I do know that lay individuals do not think in terms of probability.

 

One thing I don't understand, is that you say someone is not certain until they attain a 99/100. I find that a arbitrary number. I could be certain at 75/100 or 80/100. I imgaine there are individuals, that if asked, would respond they are certain that the next one out of the bag will be white after they have pulled ten in a row.

 

The problem: We are not perfect rational beings to begin with. However, I would not doubt, that the probability of an individual responding as "certain" increases as they move more towards 99/100...

[Ophiolite]

I am not sure if this is what Johnny5 orginally stated' date=' but I do know that lay individuals do not think in terms of probability.

[/quote']Excellent point.

[Lestat V]

So you guys are saying that your willing that all the necesary chemicals and conditions were present resulting in a perfectly functioning lifeform capable of reproducing. Those odds are mind boggling in themselves. Then this lifeform sucessfully mutated into every type of life we have today. considering many lifeforms today could not evolve no matter how much time they had this seems strange. but you accept it without blinking an eye and the possibility of a supreme being creating it all is unnacceptable. But i would love to see you explain the bat.

[swansont]

So you guys are saying that your willing that all the necesary chemicals and conditions were present resulting in a perfectly functioning lifeform capable of reproducing. Those odds are mind boggling in themselves. Then this lifeform sucessfully mutated into every type of life we have today. considering many lifeforms today could not evolve no matter how much time they had this seems strange. but you accept it without blinking an eye and the possibility of a supreme being creating it all is unnacceptable. But i would love to see you explain the bat.

 

The odds are certainly mind boggling if you do them wrong, and don't understand or misapply probability.

 

The probability of something happening is 1, if it has already happened. So even if there are events that are unlikely, you can't use probability to prove that the lottery winner didn't win the lottery.

 

And there's always the Miller-Urey experiment. A whole bunch of purportedly low-probability events, and amino acids were formed anyway. Strongly implies that the probability calculations are garbage.

[Lestat V]

Ah but amino acids are one thing. life is something else. Sorry i'm not a biologist but how many amino acids are in the most basic organisms. and the fact and you'd have to assume that everytime something evolved it was capable of reproduction. Mutation would have to be advantageous which in real life is very rarely true. And all this relates to single celled organisms which can be self replicating. The leap from a cell to humans or really any other animal is rather large. Evolution doesn't work. again i challenge you all to explain to me the bat. Too many things that have to happen all at once. Special ears to hear a specialized pitch by specialized mouth all interpreted by a specialized brain. And none of these things are any good without the others, and none are really useful partially it would take all three developing completely in one generation to have them beneficial at all. On top of explain why they fly.

[swansont]

Ah but amino acids are one thing. life is something else. Sorry i'm not a biologist but how many amino acids are in the most basic organisms. and the fact and you'd have to assume that everytime something evolved it was capable of reproduction. Mutation would have to be advantageous which in real life is very rarely true. And all this relates to single celled organisms which can be self replicating. The leap from a cell to humans or really any other animal is rather large. Evolution doesn't work. again i challenge you all to explain to me the bat. Too many things that have to happen all at once. Special ears to hear a specialized pitch by specialized mouth all interpreted by a specialized brain. And none of these things are any good without the others, and none are really useful partially it would take all three developing completely in one generation to have them beneficial at all. On top of explain why they fly.

 

 

It's all the same argument, and points to the same flaw in reasoning. You say it's low probability for various steps toward life, but you don't know exactly what those steps are, and some of the steps are shown to not have a low probability.

 

One of the reasons the Miller-Urey experiment gave amino acids is the results of chemistry aren't random - not all outcomes are possible, and of the ones that are, they don't have equal probability.

 

Questions of the form "How could X possibly have evolved?" are argument from incredulity. Nature isn't limited by your ability to understand it.

 

But as far as the bat goes, they do have eyes. They just don't need to use them much anymore. What precludes the sonar from developing gradually for a predator that was, say, shifting its feeding time from daytime to twilight? The hearing supplements the sight until its able to hunt in darker conditions, at which time they eyes are no longer necessary. Hunting in low light exploits a new niche where there is less competition. And they fly because they have wings, and feed on things that also fly.

[Lestat V]

Now earlier there was an argument tath after something has happened that the probability is one. Well i'm not saying the man doesn't have the money but i'm willing to say he didn't get it from the lottery. Just because life is here doesn't mean it evolved. Please note that it's not a question of bats just having keen hearing. The mouth parts and brain both would have to evolve at once. Not gradually. what good is hearing partially supersonic sounds if you can't interpret them. whats the good of being able to interpret them if you can't produce them. And being able to produce them requires drastically different equipment that is absolutely useless without the other two. And where did the wings come from. My other question is evolution takes place gradually, well where are all the transitional species. Fossil record is curiosly void of any sort of transitional animals.

[swansont]

Now earlier there was an argument tath after something has happened that the probability is one. Well i'm not saying the man doesn't have the money but i'm willing to say he didn't get it from the lottery. Just because life is here doesn't mean it evolved. Please note that it's not a question of bats just having keen hearing. The mouth parts and brain both would have to evolve at once. Not gradually. what good is hearing partially supersonic sounds if you can't interpret them. whats the good of being able to interpret them if you can't produce them. And being able to produce them requires drastically different equipment that is absolutely useless without the other two. And where did the wings come from. My other question is evolution takes place gradually, well where are all the transitional species. Fossil record is curiosly void of any sort of transitional animals.

 

"Just because life is here doesn't mean it evolved." True. But as I was not making that argument, the point is moot. What I am doing is refuting that if the odds are calculated to be small then it can't have happened. Unlikely things do happen.

 

You'll have to show in more detail why all the parts have to evolve at once. Just because you can't see an advantage to having hearing that's less efficient than bats currently have doesn't prove anything other than you having limitations in understanding the situation. Are you claiming that you, who presumably have worse hearing than a bat, have never been able to use sound to help locate something you could not see very well? (like hearing something behind you, causing you to turn around?)

 

For transitional species, you first have to define specifically what you mean by "transitional" because, if history is any guide, it will not resemble what anybody who has competent understanding of evolution calls a transitional species.

[Lestat V]

By transitional species I'm talking the fact that a present day animal did not just pop out of its predecessor. Evolution is a slow process. A mutation favors the animal so it is able to reproduce better than it's contemporaries. The mutation threfore will become more prevailing and more pronounced as that set of genes controlling it become more concentrated. But as I said this is a gradual process. and in actuality how many mutations are actually beneficial. Most mutations that take place are actually worse. SO i ask where are the species that come between species. where is the fish that beame the newt. if they kept evolving then why are there any "primitive animal" IE alligator ceolocanths still here. Sorry about spelling. Shouldn't they have kept evolving.

Note that i never said it couldn't happen. I said that you so easily accept the infinitesimal odds of evolution happeing but you can't even imagine that that we were put here.

And bats hearing is not just a question of better hearing it's a completely different type of hearing. Echolocation is basically sonar or radar, with very specialized emitters and receptors necessary not the same as me hearing a noise and turning around. Yes it could lead to better normal hearing in a species but it won't result in a bats sensory equipment.

[swansont]

By transitional species I'm talking the fact that a present day animal did not just pop out of its predecessor. Evolution is a slow process. A mutation favors the animal so it is able to reproduce better than it's contemporaries. The mutation threfore will become more prevailing and more pronounced as that set of genes controlling it become more concentrated. But as I said this is a gradual process. and in actuality how many mutations are actually beneficial. Most mutations that take place are actually worse. SO i ask where are the species that come between species. where is the fish that beame the newt. if they kept evolving then why are there any "primitive animal" IE alligator ceolocanths still here. Sorry about spelling. Shouldn't they have kept evolving.

 

If you expect a fish to become a newt, then you don't understand what evolution predicts.

 

Evolution does not predict that every species will evolve at the same rate - they change depending on how much selection pressure is on them. Even so, you can't assume that the genetic makeup of an alligator is the same as an alligator species of a million years ago, even if they look the same.

 

One example of a transition sequence is the cetaceans. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, and others show the transition of an aquatic mammal with limbs into modern whales.

 

Note that i never said it couldn't happen. I said that you so easily accept the infinitesimal odds of evolution happeing but you can't even imagine that that we were put here.

 

And what I showed was that the odds calculations are flawed, so you can't conclude that they are infinitesimal, and that you can't use this approach to disprove evolution.

 

There's a bunch of evidence that backs up evolution, and that's why I accept it.

 

And bats hearing is not just a question of better hearing it's a completely different type of hearing. Echolocation is basically sonar or radar' date=' with very specialized emitters and receptors necessary not the same as me hearing a noise and turning around. Yes it could lead to better normal hearing in a species but it won't result in a bats sensory equipment.[/quote']

 

You appear to assume that all species hear the same frequencies, and that's not true. Why do you assume that bats couldn't already hear at higher frequencies before developing echolocation? And not all of them use ultrasound - some use frequencies that humans can hear. If higher frequencies were more useful for some species, why could the range have not changed over time?

[john5746]

This is exactly the kind of reasoning which a stochastic reasoning agent will demonstrate. And it is wrong.

 

After seeing 99 white swans you should not be fairly confident that the last swan is white. You should be totally uncertain' date=' and for the following reason...

 

Suppose instead of giving you a bag with 100 swans in it, I gave you a bag with only one swan in it. You have never seen a swan before in your life, and you know that the bag contains the only swan in existence. I ask you, what is the probability that all swans are white. Well you haven't looked in the bag yet, you have no clue, you are TOTALLY uncertain.

 

Well this problem with N=1, is equivalent to the other problem with N=100, and you just took out 99 white swans. So why would you be totally uncertain in one case, and partially certain in the other case, when they are one and the same case.[/quote']

 

OK, lets restate this...

 

Say a man holds a gun to your head and says the next swan you pull better be white or else. In one hand he has a bag that he has pulled 99 white swans in a row(blindfolded) and has one left. In the other bag he has one swan.

 

Which bag are you going to select?

[Lestat V]

Ok but what good is the hearing of higher frequencies. I'm not talking a little higher i'm talking a lot higher. In order for a charachteristic to evolve it must be advantageous. Hearing sounds that aren't produced is not advantageous.

[swansont]

Ok but what good is the hearing of higher frequencies. I'm not talking a little higher i'm talking a lot higher. In order for a charachteristic to evolve it must be advantageous. Hearing sounds that aren't produced is not advantageous.

 

Animals hear over a range of frequencies (humans from about 20 Hz to 20 kHz, if memory serves) but the cutoff at either end is not a fixed value - there is variation.

 

Being able to discern a small target requires a smaller wavelength and thus a higher frequency. So an animal that has a better-than-normal response at the high end has an advantage. If it can pass that advantage on, then that advantage will tend to spread through the population. But there will still be variation in the offspring. So if there continues to be an advantage for hearing at the highest end of the frequency response, there will continue to be selection pressure for higher and higher frequency responses.

 

As far as production goes, any non-pure tone (i.e. not a sine wave) will have harmonics. So production of the sound can already exist. It's also possible that some animals used passive echolocation at first, and developed better production later.

 

As I said before, statements that "X couldn't have evolved" is argument from incredulity, and merely a statement of the limited imagination and understanding of the declarer.

[Johnny5]

OK' date=' lets restate this...

 

Say a man holds a gun to your head and says the next swan you pull better be white or else. In one hand he has a bag that he has pulled 99 white swans in a row(blindfolded) and has one left. In the other bag he has one swan.

 

Which bag are you going to select?[/quote']

 

I would look him right into the eyes, and ask him which one contains the white swan, and figure out what to do next by watching his eye movements.

[john5746]

I would look him right into the eyes, and ask him which one contains the white swan, and figure out what to do next by watching his eye movements.

 

He has no knowledge of what is in the bags or what he has pulled out of them.

 

How easy would it be to pull 99 white swans out of a bag without getting the black one?

[Sadako]

swansont has a good point.

Also, existing evidence supporting evolution implies that the "hearing, flying, producing sounds, etc" aspects did not evolve at the same time, because there did not always exist the organism of "bat". Most likely, the hearing, flying, and producing sounds are decendent genes from earlier organisms. One could say, "What good is a book if one can't read?". That doesn't mean that writing and reading evolved at the same time in the current organism, it just means that these skills developed over time and are passed down/modified throughout the generations.

[kriminal99]

This is exactly the kind of reasoning which a stochastic reasoning agent will demonstrate. And it is wrong.

 

After seeing 99 white swans you should not be fairly confident that the last swan is white. You should be totally uncertain' date=' and for the following reason...

 

Suppose instead of giving you a bag with 100 swans in it, I gave you a bag with only one swan in it. You have never seen a swan before in your life, and you know that the bag contains the only swan in existence. I ask you, what is the probability that all swans are white. Well you haven't looked in the bag yet, you have no clue, you are TOTALLY uncertain.

 

Well this problem with N=1, is equivalent to the other problem with N=100, and you just took out 99 white swans. So why would you be totally uncertain in one case, and partially certain in the other case, when they are one and the same case.[/quote']

 

But in the N=100 case, if you have to guess white or black swan, and if you guess right you get a date with a hot girl, which one are you going to guess? In everyone's experience if you guess white you will be right more often than you are wrong.

 

You might be horrified to know that you cannot think without using induction in general (pretty much the same reasoning used in statistics) by the way . Anotherwords for example you posted in english using certain words because in your experience people would be able to understand you. This is analogous to an infinite swan containing bag where after a large number of trials are swans are white.

 

A control on induction that we can exert however is to recognize when two situations might be different so that we cannot apply the history of one situation to the history of the other. Anotherwords, you say the N=100 case is just like the N=1 case but I disagree. In the real world, as anyone has seen it so far, you would be wrong more often if you said the swan was black then you would if you said it was white. You may be uncertain, but you may also have a motivation to choose one way or the other.

 

I don't think the fact that we could be wrong in either case is a good reason for applying the same history of success we might have in the N=1 case to the N=100 case. Rather to prove the two situations were the same we would need to know everything relevant to determining the outcome, in which case we wouldn't need the two situations to begin with.