Backwards probability and creationist flawed reasoning
One thing creationists often trot out is how improbable the universe is.
There's really two separate parts to this. One being how improbable it is that the world around us seemingly so perfectly fits human life. Creationists generally use the word "perfectly" but it's clear we're not perfectly suited to the Earth as a whole, a desert isn't a very nice place for a human for example.
The Earth doesn’t fit perfectly with life, life just managed to change enough to survive. Life on Earth evolved to suit the conditions life found itself in, it's like asking why a puddle of water fits so perfectly into the whole in the ground. That's just how it works. Life that breathes hydrogen in order to survive wouldn't last very long, yet life which breathes oxygen would survive as we now have oxygen in the atmosphere and so on. During mass extinction events, would they say the Earth fits life so perfectly? Of course not because a lot of species would be dying due to new conditions they find themselves in which they didn't evolve for. It's flawed reasoning to the very core.
The other addresses how improbable things are at the cosmological scale, i.e. the probability that matter could form or the universe wouldn't collapse an instant after the Big Bang.
On the cosmological scale and even on the life on Earth scale, you're doing probability backwards. Which simply doesn't work.
If you took a dice with a million sides and rolled a number say 159154. What were the odds of you rolling that number? A million to one. Yet it happened.
If we say you cannot exist unless that number is 754689 and the dice keeps rolling, eventually it'll hit 754689 and you'll exist and pop up and say wow how improbable this was. The fact the dice may of rolled a million times already, but because you didn't exist and therefore couldn't record those million attempts doesn't mean it's impossible; it was simply inevitable.
You can't do probability backwards, it just doesn't make sense.
Categories: Debunking
1st July 2006 01:00:31, 343 words, 1160 views
20 comments » • Send a trackback »
1st July 2006 01:00:31, 343 words, 1160 views20 comments » • Send a trackback »
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
20 comments
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com/
The dice example is one of my favorites, and I've presented it on my podcast more than once. Ken Miller did a good job of stating what the IDists and Creationists do: they calculate the probability of something happening twice, and because the second time is extremely unlikely, therefore, it couldn't have happened to begin with.
As you said, if I roll a 60 digit number, the odds are 1 in 6^-60. The odds of rolling this number again are of course astronomically small, but I still got it the first time. Similarly, the universe can exist, and us putting probability to it's existence is a misuse of probability.
As you said, if I roll a 60 digit number, the odds are 1 in 6^-60. The odds of rolling this number again are of course astronomically small, but I still got it the first time. Similarly, the universe can exist, and us putting probability to it's existence is a misuse of probability.
1st July 2006 @ 02:58
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]
Please,
The only evidence that evolutionist have thatchemicals present in the early Earth's oceans and atmosphere could have formed amino acids, which could have combined to form proteins, which eventually turned into the first living cell was done by
Miller " Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" And
Fox "Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life".
This has propigated many many myths that are felt to be true.
Michael Girouard, M.D., showed that these experiments did not prove that amino acids and proteins could have formed naturally. In fact, they prove that life could not have happened that way.
Even the Encyclopedia of Evolution said:
Decades of persistent failure to "create life" by the "spark in the soup" method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma.
But even the most promising, technically sophisticated attempts to demonstrate the origin of life from nonliving chemicals are still guesses and gropes in the dark. For almost a century, many scientists have taught that some version of the "spark in the soup" theory "must" be true. Repetition of this idea as fact, without sufficient evidence, has done a disservice to new generations by capping their curiosity about a profound and open question.
The only evidence that evolutionist have thatchemicals present in the early Earth's oceans and atmosphere could have formed amino acids, which could have combined to form proteins, which eventually turned into the first living cell was done by
Miller " Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" And
Fox "Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life".
This has propigated many many myths that are felt to be true.
Michael Girouard, M.D., showed that these experiments did not prove that amino acids and proteins could have formed naturally. In fact, they prove that life could not have happened that way.
Even the Encyclopedia of Evolution said:
Decades of persistent failure to "create life" by the "spark in the soup" method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma.
But even the most promising, technically sophisticated attempts to demonstrate the origin of life from nonliving chemicals are still guesses and gropes in the dark. For almost a century, many scientists have taught that some version of the "spark in the soup" theory "must" be true. Repetition of this idea as fact, without sufficient evidence, has done a disservice to new generations by capping their curiosity about a profound and open question.
3rd July 2006 @ 02:19
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
Again, very typical of Creationists to rely on 50 year old experiments to try and attack current theory. You do realize that the Miller experiment was done in the 1950's, correct? Why then do you neglect to mention that the theories behind abiogenesis have multiplied and have changed since then? Is it because attacking a strawman argument is easier for you?
You do not even attack any specific model. The RNA World hypothesis, for example, is just one promising model in the field. Calling it a "grope in the dark" is simply wishful thinking. Besides, abiogenesis IS a fact. Once there was no life and now there is some — it had to have come about SOME how, and that is what abiogenesis means.
Break the word down "a" means without, "bio" refers to life, and "genesis", well, you of all people should know that one.
You do not even attack any specific model. The RNA World hypothesis, for example, is just one promising model in the field. Calling it a "grope in the dark" is simply wishful thinking. Besides, abiogenesis IS a fact. Once there was no life and now there is some — it had to have come about SOME how, and that is what abiogenesis means.
Break the word down "a" means without, "bio" refers to life, and "genesis", well, you of all people should know that one.
4th July 2006 @ 02:35
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]
Encyclopedia of Evolution is a evolutionist book. I'm just pointing out the flawed points of your theories. You never bring any concrete proof of any of your ideas. NEVER. And if you do I'll flame them.
(and by the way I'm not a crazy fundamintalist christian.)
I just like giving you people a hard time because most of you know nothing of evolution. And the few that do. Admit it is only but a theory. And all means of proving it have failed.
Unless you have some information to enlighten me with. I'm very open to the idea. :)
(and by the way I'm not a crazy fundamintalist christian.)
I just like giving you people a hard time because most of you know nothing of evolution. And the few that do. Admit it is only but a theory. And all means of proving it have failed.
Unless you have some information to enlighten me with. I'm very open to the idea. :)
5th July 2006 @ 15:45
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]
*Unrelated to other Post*
Just thinking. How fast did the ice ages hit? Did they happen real fast or gradually? If they happened gradually then why didnt most of the earth's species evolve to suite life on the tundra?
Just thinking. How fast did the ice ages hit? Did they happen real fast or gradually? If they happened gradually then why didnt most of the earth's species evolve to suite life on the tundra?
5th July 2006 @ 16:04
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
You are making me laugh for two reasons:
1) You don't understand what science is based off of. It's not "concrete proof". It is impossible to prove anything in science because that detracts from falsifiability, which is something that separates science from dogma. You also say evolution is "only a theory". Do you even know what a scientific theory is? It is the amalgamation of facts and laws, the power of explanation of a wide body of phenomena. Gravity, Plate Tectonics, and Quantum Chromodynamics are also "only theories", would you like to quibble about their veracity as well?
2) Abiogenesis is not evolution anyway. Evolution deals with life. Abiogenesis is a process that began without life, and ended with life. Even if it was somehow magically necessary that some intelligence created the first life, it wouldn't detract from evolution one bit.
You say we know nothing of evolution, but you have shown time and time again that it is you that knows nothing. It also has been made apparent that you know nothing about science in general either.
If you knew so much about evolution you would realize that the question in your second post is rather simple to answer. Many creatures DID evolve to life on the tundra, but once again, it's not the hopes and aspirations of a creature that change it's genetic code. Those that already have modifications that would help them survive the weather would be spared, and those that didn't would perish. It's not "Oh, I wish I could grow thick fur" and BAM, you have thick fur! That's an outdated and incorrect evolutionary mechanism. Then again, as you said, I know "nothing of evolution" and I must admit it's "only a theory".
1) You don't understand what science is based off of. It's not "concrete proof". It is impossible to prove anything in science because that detracts from falsifiability, which is something that separates science from dogma. You also say evolution is "only a theory". Do you even know what a scientific theory is? It is the amalgamation of facts and laws, the power of explanation of a wide body of phenomena. Gravity, Plate Tectonics, and Quantum Chromodynamics are also "only theories", would you like to quibble about their veracity as well?
2) Abiogenesis is not evolution anyway. Evolution deals with life. Abiogenesis is a process that began without life, and ended with life. Even if it was somehow magically necessary that some intelligence created the first life, it wouldn't detract from evolution one bit.
You say we know nothing of evolution, but you have shown time and time again that it is you that knows nothing. It also has been made apparent that you know nothing about science in general either.
If you knew so much about evolution you would realize that the question in your second post is rather simple to answer. Many creatures DID evolve to life on the tundra, but once again, it's not the hopes and aspirations of a creature that change it's genetic code. Those that already have modifications that would help them survive the weather would be spared, and those that didn't would perish. It's not "Oh, I wish I could grow thick fur" and BAM, you have thick fur! That's an outdated and incorrect evolutionary mechanism. Then again, as you said, I know "nothing of evolution" and I must admit it's "only a theory".
5th July 2006 @ 22:35
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]
You want to use simple science then I will use simple science.
Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
6th July 2006 @ 18:01
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
I guess building a car violates the second law of thermodynamics because you take pieces of metal and assemble a car.
You do know that the sun gives the Earth energy every day, don't you?
The Second Law actually doesn't say things the way you do. If it did, it would be impossible to make a car, no matter how much energy we put into the system.
The Second Law says the entropy in a CLOSED SYSTEM will always increase, entropy being a measure of "unusable energy". I've studied physics, and plan on majoring in it in college. You however seem to parrot Kent Hovind on the issue.
There is no such thing as the Law of Biogenesis. I don't know where Creationists get this. What Louis Pasteur showed is that flies don't spontaneously appear out of rotting meat, thus destroying spontaneous generation (which is NOT a current idea of abiogenesis). Besides, abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It's like saying chemistry depends on black hole cosmology. They might complement one another in some way, but one theory doesn't depend on the other.
You do know that the sun gives the Earth energy every day, don't you?
The Second Law actually doesn't say things the way you do. If it did, it would be impossible to make a car, no matter how much energy we put into the system.
The Second Law says the entropy in a CLOSED SYSTEM will always increase, entropy being a measure of "unusable energy". I've studied physics, and plan on majoring in it in college. You however seem to parrot Kent Hovind on the issue.
There is no such thing as the Law of Biogenesis. I don't know where Creationists get this. What Louis Pasteur showed is that flies don't spontaneously appear out of rotting meat, thus destroying spontaneous generation (which is NOT a current idea of abiogenesis). Besides, abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It's like saying chemistry depends on black hole cosmology. They might complement one another in some way, but one theory doesn't depend on the other.
8th July 2006 @ 00:46
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]
First the car:
A car does degrades overtime. Second there is a mechanism to build a car up.
the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value
Wikipedia
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis".
A car does degrades overtime. Second there is a mechanism to build a car up.
the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value
Wikipedia
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis".
9th July 2006 @ 03:58
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
Very good. Do you see now that you have misapplied the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The Earth is NOT a closed system, it gets energy from the sun, this energy is what allows plants to grow, and evolution to occur. If you understand the passage you listed, you would realize that evolution does not violate the second law. Energy put into a system will allow organization. The suns energy will go through a chain of usage, eventually fueling evolution.
Now, as for the law of Biogenesis, you are abusing what Pasteur's claim was actually made to cover: the notion of spontaneous generation. What Pasteur sought to disprove was that maggots spawned fully-formed in rotting meat. And he did. He did nothing to attack the notion of simple life originating via chemicals.
Now, as for the law of Biogenesis, you are abusing what Pasteur's claim was actually made to cover: the notion of spontaneous generation. What Pasteur sought to disprove was that maggots spawned fully-formed in rotting meat. And he did. He did nothing to attack the notion of simple life originating via chemicals.
9th July 2006 @ 05:01
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]
How does the sun fuel evolution? If the sun is the deciding factor why isnt their life all over the galaxy? (Not saying there isnt but at this point we have no proof of otherwise)
Second the law of Biogenesis does hold true with evolution. It holds that a fruit fly can go through many micro mutations and eventually become a different type of fruit fly but it will always remain a fruit fly.
Life cannot spontanously come from nothing. This notion is ludacris.
That is why people are against creationism. I too believe this. But that being said evolutionist believing that a set of raw materials will magically become a living organism is equally crazy. From years of indoctrination most evolutionist believe without facts that this must be true. Well years ago people thought the world was flat. Before that they thought the galaxy revolved around the Earth. These are no dumb wits either. At thier times they prominent philosphers whom we know hold in high regard. But that doesnt change the fact that simple beliefs should be held as scientific fact.
Second the law of Biogenesis does hold true with evolution. It holds that a fruit fly can go through many micro mutations and eventually become a different type of fruit fly but it will always remain a fruit fly.
Life cannot spontanously come from nothing. This notion is ludacris.
That is why people are against creationism. I too believe this. But that being said evolutionist believing that a set of raw materials will magically become a living organism is equally crazy. From years of indoctrination most evolutionist believe without facts that this must be true. Well years ago people thought the world was flat. Before that they thought the galaxy revolved around the Earth. These are no dumb wits either. At thier times they prominent philosphers whom we know hold in high regard. But that doesnt change the fact that simple beliefs should be held as scientific fact.
10th July 2006 @ 15:48
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
Why will it always remain a fruit fly? I'm still waiting to here what force prevents small changes becoming big changes over time.
Where's the line that says that species cannot change anymore?
You seem to assume that life in its present form just popped up. It didn't the first life was simple and very crude and could just about make copies of itself.
"This notion is ludacris."
At least it's less ludacris then a supreme being popping into existance and then creating everything.
Where's the line that says that species cannot change anymore?
You seem to assume that life in its present form just popped up. It didn't the first life was simple and very crude and could just about make copies of itself.
"This notion is ludacris."
At least it's less ludacris then a supreme being popping into existance and then creating everything.
10th July 2006 @ 15:54
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]
I vote for the Q being in Startrek.
Why wouldnt it remain a fruit fly? There are thousands of species of fruit flies why hasnt one become a dog? Its a crazy notion. But its the easiest way to explain it. The mutations are adaptations to help survive. It does not change into a new type of bug.
Life may have been simple. But what caused non living minerals to be living organisms. Theres a huge jump there. And there is no way to explain how or why. Even if evolutionist where correct they would need some reason for this to happen. If your truly scientific then you would conceed that for evolutionist to be correct you must be missing a piece to the puzzle. And until the piece is found there is more holes in this theory than swiss cheese
Why wouldnt it remain a fruit fly? There are thousands of species of fruit flies why hasnt one become a dog? Its a crazy notion. But its the easiest way to explain it. The mutations are adaptations to help survive. It does not change into a new type of bug.
Life may have been simple. But what caused non living minerals to be living organisms. Theres a huge jump there. And there is no way to explain how or why. Even if evolutionist where correct they would need some reason for this to happen. If your truly scientific then you would conceed that for evolutionist to be correct you must be missing a piece to the puzzle. And until the piece is found there is more holes in this theory than swiss cheese
10th July 2006 @ 17:38
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
How does the sun fuel evolution? First of all, do NOT strawman my argument and say the sun is the only thing behind evolution. Other factors need to exist, but the sun provides the energy. The sun also energizes the rest of the solar system, but no other planet has the Earth's unique chemical composition and atmosphere.
Second, the sun fuels evolution like it fuels anything else. Do you know what happens when an energetic photon is absorbed by an electron? It gets excited, gains energy. This energy can eventually be used by ATP molecules, which are the main energy sources for biological organisms. Since evolution is fueled by mutations, the mere fact that replication can occur due to the suns energy allows mutations to occur. Not to mention a creature can get energy from it's food sources (ultimately derived from the sun as well) to live out it's daily life and succumb to natural selection. It's really not a confusing process, just a long chain.
Saying the "Law of Biogenesis applies to evolution" does not make it so. The only reason Pasteur brought it up was to counter the claim that rotting meat spontaneously produced fruit flies. You Creationists always seem to misquote and misuse the ideas of others in order to further your nonsensical agenda. The Law of Biogenesis ONLY is an argument against SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, which is NOT a theory of abiogenesis, and hasn't been for a hundred years at least. Once again, I see you relying on outdated experiments to attempt to affect current scientific thought.
Second, the sun fuels evolution like it fuels anything else. Do you know what happens when an energetic photon is absorbed by an electron? It gets excited, gains energy. This energy can eventually be used by ATP molecules, which are the main energy sources for biological organisms. Since evolution is fueled by mutations, the mere fact that replication can occur due to the suns energy allows mutations to occur. Not to mention a creature can get energy from it's food sources (ultimately derived from the sun as well) to live out it's daily life and succumb to natural selection. It's really not a confusing process, just a long chain.
Saying the "Law of Biogenesis applies to evolution" does not make it so. The only reason Pasteur brought it up was to counter the claim that rotting meat spontaneously produced fruit flies. You Creationists always seem to misquote and misuse the ideas of others in order to further your nonsensical agenda. The Law of Biogenesis ONLY is an argument against SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, which is NOT a theory of abiogenesis, and hasn't been for a hundred years at least. Once again, I see you relying on outdated experiments to attempt to affect current scientific thought.
11th July 2006 @ 00:26
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]
Are you nuts. The Law of biogenesis is the foundation for modern biology. Its a simple concept Life comes from Life.
As for your sun model. (I dont need an elementry chemistry lesson). There are minerals and alloys on every planet in the solar system. Why arnt there any living organisms on them? Why havent the minerals there miraculosly become some type of elementry form of life that could survive in its enviorment?
As for your sun model. (I dont need an elementry chemistry lesson). There are minerals and alloys on every planet in the solar system. Why arnt there any living organisms on them? Why havent the minerals there miraculosly become some type of elementry form of life that could survive in its enviorment?
11th July 2006 @ 02:42
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
Do you listen? Name one other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere with the unique composition that ours has. I stated that beforehand but you must have glossed over it.
Yes, the law of biogenesis is the foundation for biology. What you don't seem to get is that abiogenesis, the origin of life, is a CHEMISTRY question.
Yes, the law of biogenesis is the foundation for biology. What you don't seem to get is that abiogenesis, the origin of life, is a CHEMISTRY question.
11th July 2006 @ 20:01
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]
Abiogenesis just refers to the chemical origin for life.
Biogenesis holds that life cannot be made from non-life.
So they are entwined.
Abiogenesis is theory. Biogenesis is law.
Biogenesis holds that life cannot be made from non-life.
So they are entwined.
Abiogenesis is theory. Biogenesis is law.
12th July 2006 @ 16:58
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
Whoa whoa whoa, you're backpedalling now.
You just said, and I quote: "The Law of biogenesis is the foundation for modern biology. Its a simple concept Life comes from Life."
Then you say
"Abiogenesis just refers to the chemical origin for life." Then you make the illogical jump and say chemical and biological are the same.
Next, theories are at a higher scientific status than laws. Theories unite laws with facts to explain things. Ask any scientist, or read some books. You should know that if you know about science.
You just said, and I quote: "The Law of biogenesis is the foundation for modern biology. Its a simple concept Life comes from Life."
Then you say
"Abiogenesis just refers to the chemical origin for life." Then you make the illogical jump and say chemical and biological are the same.
Next, theories are at a higher scientific status than laws. Theories unite laws with facts to explain things. Ask any scientist, or read some books. You should know that if you know about science.
13th July 2006 @ 00:38
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]
If your going to say that raw chemicals can become life then then it is part of biology. The chemical portion is chemistry. Chemicals do not and cannot become life. Theories should ideally stay within the parameters of the laws unless they are trying to disprove one.
13th July 2006 @ 17:22
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor] · http://lucretius1.blogspot.com
Tell me, lbbeep, how you make this magical distinction? Biological systems are ultimately based off of chemical interactions, which are ultimately based off of physical interactions. You are drawing a magical line and isolating biology from the rest of everything else.
The Law you quote, which is not valid for what you're arguing anyway, is not going to be accepted by me or anyone else without some reasoning. Yes, we have never witnessed abiogenesis, but the atmosphere isn't right at the time and you and I both know that. Given the right atmosphere, what is going to stop chemicals from organizing into a primitive lifeform?
The Law you quote, which is not valid for what you're arguing anyway, is not going to be accepted by me or anyone else without some reasoning. Yes, we have never witnessed abiogenesis, but the atmosphere isn't right at the time and you and I both know that. Given the right atmosphere, what is going to stop chemicals from organizing into a primitive lifeform?
14th July 2006 @ 05:57