Big numbers.

MooseJam

Watching creationist vids a lot of the time big numbers are mentioned as a reason why evolution could never have happened, the last was some guy who stated that the chances of a particular protein forming by random chance was 10 to the power of 72 which he said was larger than the number of atoms in the known universe. When I hear these arguments it always makes me think well what are the chances of you being born. Out of every egg and sperm in the world that those two would meet, and then take it back a 1000 generations, that for every person in that line that one egg and one sperm out of all in the world would meet. I think this number would be far greater than any they state as a reason against evolution and yet there they stand talking about it. So am I right or way off, would that be as big a number as I think it would be ?

Pushtrak

I don't think approaching them on the numbers game in this manner would do anything in persuading them of anything, to be honest. As for actually trying to come up with such a number, my understanding would be that it'd be near, if not actually impossible.

But then, what do I know.

Turtwig

Actually all you have to do is look at yourself in the mirror at any certain instant in time. Take note of how many atomic and sub-atomic particles you have and where exactly they are located. Then realise that if they were at a slightly different location for this same point in time, you wouldn't be the same exact you.

Kinda a meaningless question isn't it because you are here?

As for the creationist nonsense, I think in the BCP thread it has been thoroughly torn asunder, but here's the brief explanation. The key is that proteins didn't just form fully assembled; they couldn't have.
To quote Bill Bryson, it's like imaging that:

"you took all the components that make up a human being—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on—and put them in a container with some water, gave it a vigorous stir, and out stepped a completed person."

GLaDOS

Malty_T wrote: »

"you took all the components that make up a human being—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on—and put them in a container with some water, gave it a vigorous stir, and out stepped a completed person. That would be amazing."

At this very moment I'm studying (boards keeps distracting me though >_>) the various roles of ions in the body and the enzymes that help shuttle them around. Everything is ridiculously precise and regulated, it's hard to imagine how this managed to come about. But you have to remember there has been millions of years of essentially trial and error in terms of evolution. Considering incomprehensible amount of time over which this has happened, you can start to imagine how its possible.

Daftendirekt

I'm not a mathematician of any sort (not even close), but I do know from reading this forum, among other things, that the probability of something can't be calculated unless the exact conditions present at the time are known.

So anyone who quotes these massive figures at you is, to be blunt, full of shit.

Also, creationists seem absolutely unable to get around the fact that there isn't any fundamental division between living and non-living material. Once you have a molecule of some sort that can replicate itself (imperfectly), you have the main ingredient of life right there.

The self-replicating molecule doesn't need to be a living thing, but once it can create copies of itself, it seems pretty much inevitable that some form of more complex life will arise, thanks to natural selection (random mutations and non-random selection).

rccaulfield

Take them apart from the point of view that they use the word RANDOM. Forget the numbers rubbish and take that myth apart. But you won't reason with a creationist- you may persuade an inbetweener tho!

aidan24326

MooseJam wrote: »

When I hear these arguments it always makes me think well what are the chances of you being born. Out of every egg and sperm in the world that those two would meet, and then take it back a 1000 generations, that for every person in that line that one egg and one sperm out of all in the world would meet. I think this number would be far greater than any they state as a reason against evolution and yet there they stand talking about it. So am I right or way off, would that be as big a number as I think it would be ?

You're not way off at all. It seems that if any of your ancestors had died before they could procreate then you wouldn't be here.* Right back through millions upon millions of generations. Then just think how often many of those countless ancestors must have cheated death in their youth by a whisker, how often their copulating when they did just happened in the nick of time, the number of possible gene configurations. The odds against you and I being here must be mind-bogglingly large, far far bigger than a piddly 10^72. Yet if all those 'lucky' events of the past didn't happen someone or something else would be here instead, possibly finding their existence as improbable as we do.

*On that note, I wonder if it's possible that the same genetic arrangement that begot me could have happened by an alternative route, or would the odds against that be into the realms of fantasy?

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually all you have to do is look at yourself in the mirror at any certain instant in time. Take note of how many atomic and sub-atomic particles you have and where exactly they are located. Then realise that if they were at a slightly different location for this same point in time, you wouldn't be the same exact you.

It's more how those atomic particles are arranged though, rather than which exact ones they are. Bear in mind that the actual matter that makes up your body is almost entirely different from what you had let's say when you were a child, or even a few years ago for that matter. In a sense the person you look at in old child photos of yourself is a different being, made from different stuff, but just with the same genetic code and now with shared memories also.

Turtwig

aidan24326 wrote: »

It's more how those atomic particles are arranged though, rather than which exact ones they are.

I did say "and where exactly they are located";)

eoin5

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I'm not a mathematician of any sort (not even close), but I do know from reading this forum, among other things, that the probability of something can't be calculated unless the exact conditions present at the time are known.

So anyone who quotes these massive figures at you is, to be blunt, full of shit.

Hang on, you're just saying probability is full of sh!t there. Fair enough I suppose.... although no-one knows what causes gravity but when I drop a ball I'm working on the enormous probability (given what we've observed) that it'll fall down not up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doctoremma

ScienceNerd wrote: »

At this very moment I'm studying (boards keeps distracting me though >_>) the various roles of ions in the body and the enzymes that help shuttle them around. Everything is ridiculously precise and regulated, it's hard to imagine how this managed to come about.

There's a different between precision and parsimony. I think that what can appear to be a very tight system could often be improved (if one was a designer). Although biological systems (mostly) run like clockwork, it's not always by the simplest of mechanisms!

astroguy

It doesn't matter how big the numbers are, the fact is that it happened, we are here. So rather than using this as "evidence" against evolution, why can't these people marvel at the way we evolved, knowing that had any one of the steps along the way occured in any of the almost infinite amount of alternative ways, we would not exist?
These things aren't so highly improbable when you remember that they happened over millions of years, with natural selection shaping them and getting rid of the alternatives that didn't work as well, until we had what we have today. This creationist argument is almost like the one about the eye evolving as it is today by chance, as "What use is half an eye?", the difference being that this is disguised as a serious question as it involves smaller entities such as proteins, which people might believe formed from nothing.

Daftendirekt

eoin5 wrote: »

Hang on, you're just saying probability is full of sh!t there. Fair enough I suppose.... although no-one knows what causes gravity but when I drop a ball I'm working on the enormous probability (given what we've observed) that it'll fall down not up.

No, I don't mean probability is full of shit. I'm just pointing out the dishonesty of claiming that the probability of life arising by chance is 1 in 72,000,000,000^100,000, or whatever. You can perform all the calculations you want to show the implausibility of abiogenesis, but unless you know exactly what chemicals were floating around in the atmosphere or ocean (among other things), you'll just be making stuff up.


Something else I've been thinking about . Doesn't this type of argument depend on the notion that things had to turn out the way they did? The way I'd look at it, is that rather than the universe being fine-tuned for life, life arises because the universe happens to be the way it is.

While the idea of the universe being 'designed' a way that's conducive to life by chance seems implausible, is it any more implausible than all the grains of sand on a beach being arranged exactly the way they are by chance?

I don't know if I'm making sense, so I'll stop there.

PoleStar

All that needs to be pointed out to these guys is the lotto.

Most people have no perception of what odds ratios actually are.

They tout out these big numbers.

Point out to them that the chances of winning the lotto are slim, and yet millions enter, and even more miraculous, people win it!

Now, if something with a 1 in 40 million (current Irish lotto odds I think) odds can occur almost every week then surely a little aul DNA forming over billions of years aint too hard is it?

eoin5

Daftendirekt wrote: »

No, I don't mean probability is full of shit. I'm just pointing out the dishonesty of claiming that the probability of life arising by chance is 1 in 72,000,000,000^100,000, or whatever. You can perform all the calculations you want to show the implausibility of abiogenesis, but unless you know exactly what chemicals were floating around in the atmosphere or ocean (among other things), you'll just be making stuff up.

Yep, although no-one knows anything for certain. Probability is kinda crap in the real world as it implies some absolute possibility whereas there's infinite factors to take account for. Its a very useful human creation that helps us make sense of things but holds no truth.

These big numbers are just tactics that play on the trust people place in probability. By the same tactic I could say the perimeter of a puddle is exactly 30^1000 kilometers, I'm not wrong but I haven't told you the resolution I'm working on.

aidan24326

PoleStar wrote: »

Now, if something with a 1 in 40 million (current Irish lotto odds I think) odds can occur almost every week then surely a little aul DNA forming over billions of years aint too hard is it?

Slightly off-topic but just FYI the odds of Irish lottery (for one line) is 1 in 8,145,060. Euromillions is 1 in 76,275,360.

In any case, people forget that time is a great tamer of probability. I may be highly unlikely to win the lottery in my lifetime, but if I could live for thousands of years my chances might be a good deal better. By the same token, given billions of years and countless billions of generations who knows what evolution can achieve. And here we are.

Turtwig

aidan24326 wrote: »

I may be highly unlikely to win the lottery in my lifetime, but if I could live for thousands of years my chances might be a good deal better.

How? Each time you play it's still going to be 1 in 8,145,000.
You'd be far better off just saving up your money.

Obni

I suppose building on the Bill Bryson quote, you'd have to point out to the creationist that they are the ones who theory requires entire lifeforms to leap into existence fully formed, rather than by gradual incremental stages.

Goduznt Xzst

MooseJam wrote: »

Watching creationist vids a lot of the time big numbers are mentioned as a reason why evolution could never have happened

I believe Wicknight covered this common misdirection regarding probability a good while back.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60004723&postcount=102