The probability that life could occur without the aid of God

Originally posted by KazetNagorra

One, we already do, to some extent, understand the origins of life (not as well as we understand its development, of course). For instance we can pinpoint at what point life arose (approximately 4 billion years ago) and we know that this primitive life was much simpler than single-celled organisms today. Two, further understanding of the origins of life may come from biologists but the explanation is not "evolutionary" in nature because the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

That is not a "pin-point" you know? That is an approximation.

" we can pinpoint at what point life arose (approximately 4 billion years ago)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But let's work with that approximation.
Is there enough time, given this first primitive life thing about 4 billion years ago to have been the progenitor of the millions of species of living things (plants and animals) on the planet ?

And I am speaking of a process with NO GOAL, a process WITH NO PURPOSE, a process with far more unlikely outcomes than lucky ones.

A generous model ... a lenient model, I mean a model making most optimistic givens about rates of mutations, sequence of changes, successive steps to accomplish Evolutionary "progress" would be hard to envision simple proto cell to 8.7 million estimated species on earth.

Census of Marine Life
Summary:
About 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans. Announced by the Census of Marine Life, the figure is based on a new analytical technique. The number of species on Earth had been estimated previously at 3 million to 100 million.

Our model will of necessity not include all knowledge of the internals of life.
But an increase of those factors in knowledge is likely to make the outcome less plausible rather than more, as it ADDS to complexity.

No goal.
No plan or purpose.
Essentially we have to let the model progress with no idea of what success is to preserve as a target towards which to move.

We better relax such a restriction for leniency. As Schroeder does in one of the models he speaks of:

Allow mutations to occur in any order with no fatalities for incorrect mutations. Assume that the correct mutations are retained (that is, they are locked into the DNA and never mutated away) and allow all of the thousand potential sites which do not yet have the correct nucleitude base to mutate each generation

We have shortage of full information because of the current level of science discovery.
But we make allowances here and there and in many places for an optimistic as possible scenario.

Do you think we can traverse 4 billion years ago up to today and "natural select" into existence some 6.5 milliion land species plus some 2.2 million ocean species ?
Do you think it is probable ?

We also should think of making allowances for the environment staying pretty much the same through out this amount of time.

Just to get a general idea of your optimism about this, just use your imagination for a moment. How much time do you think it would take to go from the first living thing somehow brought into existence to a SECOND one reproduced from the first by natural selection ?

This is just imaginary now. We start with an organism which is an entity - one of its kind in some puddle or something 4 billion years ago. About how much time should we allow for a reproduction of itself in some matter so that a second one existed ? Either the first is GONE and the second is here OR the first and the second exist concurrently, by the evolutionary process.

How much time do you imagine we should allow?
A month?
A year?
A hundred years?
A Thousand?
Ten thousand ?

"Simple living thing reproduced to number 2 simple living thing."

Forget about another species. Forget about another million species.
Just your first living thing to another like it (with no goal or plan).

Originally posted by sonp
[quote] One, we already do, to some extent, understand the origins of life (not as well as we understand its development, of course). For instance we can pinpoint at what point life arose (approximately 4 billion years ago) and we know that this primitive life was much simpler than single-celled organisms today. Two, further understanding of the origins of other million species.
Just your first living thing to another like it (with no goal or plan).

Your questions are based on the false assumption that evolutionary theory only works if it can be used to predict this exact outcome, rather than a vast range of possible outcomes of which this particular reality was one. It is like staring at a roulette wheel after it has spun and pondering why the hell the ball landed on one number rather than all the other numbers it might have landed on. The answer is always going to be - because it had to land somewhere and this is somewhere within the range of possibilities. As for the probability of that outcome, after the event the question has no meaning and it is never valid to apply statistics after the event. The probability of a past event is always 1 - complete certainty - a total lack of surprise. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a fraud.

Evolution does not predict the past - it explains the past. The past has happened. Of course it is possible.

As for a plan - if you wish us to imagine that life evolved according to a plan with the goal of arriving at us and things as they are today - that plan would have had to include predicting (or arranging) the arrival of a massive meteorite clearing the entire plant of dinosaurs and opening an evolutionary space for mammals. What sort of a crazy plan is that? You are the mad one here.

Originally posted by sonship

Allow mutations to occur in any order with no fatalities for incorrect mutations. Assume that the correct mutations are retained (that is, they are locked into the DNA and never mutated away) and allow all of the thousand potential sites which do not yet have the correct nucleitude base to mutate each generation

The author first convinces the reader that the model is sooo generous, and then he slips in, when you are not looking, a false assumption. This works every time with gullible creationists who really only care about the result fitting with their religions views. It wouldn't fool anyone else for more than a second. How do I know the author did this deliberately? Simple. If the author actually thought he was on to something and had genuinely demonstrated that evolution was improbable, he would have written a scientific paper on the matter and got it published in a scientific journal. Once confirmed, he would then collect his Nobel prize. Discovering God doesn't happen every day you know. But he didn't do that. He knew very well that his claim would not stand up to such scrutiny so he wrote it in a popular book aimed at gullible creationists eager for a particular conclusion.

The false assumption you ask? Where he says 'the correct nucleotide'. As you say repeatedly, evolution has no aim, no purpose, no end goal. There is no 'correct nucleotide'. To look at the end result and demand that in a probability calculation is no different from throwing a die 50 times, writing down the sequence, noting that the sequence is highly improbable (1/6^50) and then claiming that it could not possibly have happened without Gods intervention. Do you believe God intervenes in every die throw based on my argument? No, of course not. You don't buy it for a second because you don't like the result. Not because you actually understand a thing about probability.

I should be generous you say, and allow you to throw the die in any order. Work it out. Its still highly improbable that you can throw a die 50 times without the aid of God.

[edit]I see finnegan beat me to it saying much the same thing.

Forget about another species. Forget about another million species.
Just your first living thing to another like it (with no goal or plan).
My guess would be a similar period to most cells. A few hours or less.

Originally posted by sonship
Is there enough time, given this [or multiple] first primitive life thing about [b]4 billion years ago to have been the progenitor of the millions of species of living things (plants and animals) on the planet ? [/b]

Obviously, yes. There is no evidence any other process than biological evolution has been at play in determining the development of different species.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Obviously, yes. There is no evidence any other process than biological evolution has been at play in determining the development of different species.

Not quite true. There are other NATURAL processes alongside evolution, [For example Horizontal Gene Transfer]
that also help create the diversity of life.

What there isn't is any evidence of any SUPERNATURAL processes or any gaps in our understanding where such
processes could plausibly exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The author first convinces the reader that the model is sooo generous, and then he slips in, when you are not looking, a false assumption. This works every time with gullible creationists who really only care about the result fitting with their religions views. It wouldn't fool anyone else for more than a second. How do I know the author did this delibera ...[text shortened]... th no goal or plan).
My guess would be a similar period to most cells. A few hours or less.[/b]

Forget about another species. Forget about another million species.
Just your first living thing to another like it (with no goal or plan).
My guess would be a similar period to most cells. A few hours or less.

Probability calculations are not always without merit in evolutionary theory. My son in law is a PhD mathematician working on research into the way viruses like the flu virus mutate and spread through the population. The object is to describe how epidemics arise and enable health services to interpret their data from ongoing reports. An example of the sort of problem encountered is a question such as: if there are two new mutations in the flu virus, each spreading, then will the result be two separate epidemics (so the total number of victims is estimated by adding them together) or will one virus push out the other one (so the total that matters is the outcome for the dominant virus). All weird and important questions which I have almost certainly failed to describe properly. The details do not matter in any way for my point, which is that evolutionary theory is put to use to predict the future evolution of diverse types of virus and to judge when an epidemic might be brewing. The underlying fear is a repeat of the great flu epidemic of 1918.

Obviously the evolutionary cycle at the level of a virus is vastly more rapid than the cycle for larger creatures with reproductive cycles of many years. That is why scientists can discuss the future evolution of a virus but not do much work on the future evolution of elephants. (One suspects that elephants have reached an evolutionary dead end.)

Originally posted by finnegan
. That is why scientists can discuss the future evolution of a virus but not
do much work on the future evolution of elephants. (One suspects that elephants
have reached an evolutionary dead end.)

Did I not read somewhere that there was evolutionary
pressure on elephants to develop smaller tusks?

< Is there enough time, given this first primitive life thing about 4 billion years ago to have been the progenitor of the millions of species of living things (plants and animals) on the planet ? >

It is not necessary to assume that there was only one first primitive life form, from which every present life form evolved. Life may have originated several times independently, for example at any number of undersea hot geysers, with small variations in each case which diverged along multiple branches. This would very well account for the diversity we see today, billions of years later.

< We also should think of making allowances for the environment staying pretty much the same through out this amount of time. >

No, we shouldn't. There is massively coherent evidence that the Earth has undergone significant climate change over the last 4 billion years. Some species adapted to these changes, others didn't.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What there isn't is any evidence of any SUPERNATURAL processes or any gaps in our understanding where such processes could plausibly exist.

I agree. If the process looks just like Natural Laws operating naturally, then the God-concept has no explanatory power at all.

Originally posted by finnegan
Probability calculations are not always without merit in evolutionary theory.

That is certainly so and I have not said otherwise despite sonship trying very hard to suggest that I have. In fact I have only given one specific scenario in which they are not useful and that is stated in the OP and it isn't evolution at all and it deals with calculating one specific value which I claim cannot be calculated because a number of key figures are simply not available at this time.

I have challenged two probability calculations from a book sonship quoted from, not on the basis that probability calculations can't be done, but on the basis that the writer gets it all wrong and makes demonstrably false assumptions.

Originally posted by finnegan
Your questions are based on the false assumption that evolutionary theory only works if it can be used to predict this exact outcome, rather than a vast range of possible outcomes of which this particular reality was one. It is like staring at a roulette wheel after it has spun and pondering why the hell the ball landed on one number rather than all the o ...[text shortened]... an evolutionary space for mammals. What sort of a crazy plan is that? You are the mad one here.

Your questions are based on the false assumption that evolutionary theory only works if it can be used to predict this exact outcome, rather than a vast range of possible outcomes of which this particular reality was one.

You don't think it is a valid exploration then.
I think several models is a worthwhile scientific way if given that precise prediction is not the goal.

You just want to get a idea of general plausibility.
Other theories are subjected to this kind of exploratory mathematical analysis.
It sounds kind of like some people feel that Evolution is just too sacred for it.

Besides, I just asked you to use your imagination for a moment.

It is like staring at a roulette wheel after it has spun and pondering why the hell the ball landed on one number rather than all the other numbers it might have landed on. The answer is always going to be - because it had to land somewhere and this is somewhere within the range of possibilities.

So you are saying we should not even try to figure if these proposed mechanisms make any probabilistic sense. This doesn't sound right. Richard Dawkins even stated that " measuring the statistical probability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability."

It sounds like you would tell Richard Dawkins not to even consider it. It sounds like you would object to him using a probability illustration in the first place in his book - the probability of a computerized random sentence generator and how many passes could conceivably produce a sentence from a Shakespeare play.

I say in searching for a realistic explanation, these kinds of models might just help to come up with an alternative scientific explanation to gradualism. Perhaps the probabilistic implausibility might lead to more serious consideration of punctuated spurts of change.

Science could narrow down to other possible explanations. I thought that is how science works. But to say "Don't even TRY to capture this mechanism in a statistical model" sounds like some kind of protectionism of a favored theory.

As for the probability of that outcome, after the event the question has no meaning and it is never valid to apply statistics after the event. The probability of a past event is always 1 - complete certainty - a total lack of surprise. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a fraud.

You must think the Wistar Institute symposium of 1967 "which brought together leading biologists and mathematicians" to explore a reasonable mathematical "for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution" was wrong headed right from the inception. To your view is seems they should have never even considered approaching the scientific study of Evolution in that way.

Schroeder states -

"Unfortunately, each time the mathematics showed the statistical improbability of a given assumption, the response of the biologists was that the mathematics must be somehow flawed since evolution has occurred and occurred through random mutations."

You think it was invalid for them to have even come together to look at some predictions apparently. I think this is one way in which the Science is advanced. It may not be advanced toward the exact direction you wish it to go. But they are suppose to be objective about it.

Evolution does not predict the past - it explains the past. The past has happened. Of course it is possible.

I think that is called question begging. You are not talking about a religious faith.
If you said you wished to calculate how long it would take Jesus to come to earth from some supposed point in the universe, and I said "Don't even try to do that" you would chide me probably that I am too protective of my faith.

It sounds like you are being protective of a sacred faith.
But we're talking about Biology and not divine revelation.

Reasoning backwards is what we do with the age of the universe. A general idea of when the Big Bang occurred is part of scientific study. Cosmologist don't just say "It is HERE. There is no use in trying to predict when the Big Bang may have happened, even give or take a few million years."

You seem to be trying to protect sacred dogma.

As for a plan - if you wish us to imagine that life evolved according to a plan with the goal of arriving at us and things as they are today - that plan would have had to include predicting (or arranging) the arrival of a massive meteorite clearing the entire plant of dinosaurs and opening an evolutionary space for mammals. What sort of a crazy plan is that? You are the mad one here.

An interruption of a plan is possible.
A frustration of a plan is possible.

Some statistical studies would help. And sudden interruptions or cataclysmic events influencing the progress could well be figured into us discovering the explanation of the biosphere.

You see in the total consideration of what happened sudden changes in life could be included in the theorizing. Maybe the gametes of organisms were drastically altered suddenly by a cataclysmic event.

You should not be afraid to think outside the box. And some statistical models might help in arriving at discovering alternative possibilities. As we move into the 21rst century some Evolutionists and Biologists will think outside the standard dogma.

You may call "mad" anyone who questions things which seem not to be THE one and only explanation of life's history.

Originally posted by moonbus

< Is there enough time, given this first primitive life thing about 4 billion years ago to have been the progenitor of the millions of species of living things (plants and animals) on the planet ? >

It is not necessary to assume that there was only one first primitive life form, from which every present life form evolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Life may have originated several times independently, for example at any number of undersea hot geysers, with small variations in each case which diverged along multiple branches. This would very well account for the diversity we see today, billions of years later.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's wrong with exploring a model of one beginning, and exploring models of more than one beginning ?

What's the problem with looking into approximate probabilities in one scenario and also in another proposed scenario ? Isn't that how science works. Isn't that how biologists can be assisted by mathematicians and statisticians in a cooperative search for the truth ?

So we try the model out with several separate starts of life too. No problem.

< We also should think of making allowances for the environment staying pretty much the same through out this amount of time. >

No, we shouldn't.

For the sake of getting some models we relax some of the parameters.
We try it out with a overly optimistic stable planetary environment.

Latter we begin to see how it works with a changing one over 4 billion years which is more realistic.

There is massively coherent evidence that the Earth has undergone significant climate change over the last 4 billion years. Some species adapted to these changes, others didn't.

Again, we can model with a lenient view of this first.
Latter we model with more tuning of the parameters to see the effect of it.

Again Richard Dawkins said "Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability."

So we do so not with just one model but with many. And we have graduated levels of real world history simulation. IE. You do some with the environment staying stable and see what your model says. You do others taking into account a changing environment.

Many models can give science an idea if they are on a likely track and how much, or no. Many models can necessitate exploring another explanation. Objectivity would work that way. Some of you guys are overly protective as if loss of sacred religious dogma is at stake.

Originally posted by sonship
So you are saying we should not even try to figure if these proposed mechanisms make any probabilistic sense. This doesn't sound right.

It doesn't sound right because you made it up as a strawman so that you could attack it.

Once again:
1. Nobody here has said that probability models cannot be, or should not be used when studying evolution. Yet you keep repeating that strawman over and over.
2. I and others have pointed out that the two examples of using probability models you have quoted from a book have major and obvious flaws. They are just plain wrong. It is not because they use probability that we have criticised them, but because they are wrong. You have notably not even disputed that they are wrong but instead repeatedly created strawmen to attack instead.
3. A probability model whose argument requires information we don't have cannot succeed. Therefore there are particular instances where a probability model is simply impossible due to lack of information and my OP gives an example of such a situation.

Sonship: "we can model with a lenient view of this [stable climate over deep time] first. Later we model with more tuning of the parameters to see the effect of it."

Just because we can does not mean we should, especially when better models are already available. And "better" means "consistent with observed data."

Sonship: "So we do so not with just one model but with many. And we have graduated levels of real world history simulation. IE. You do some with the environment staying stable and see what your model says. You do others taking into account a changing environment.

Many models can give science an idea if they are on a likely track and how much, or no. Many models can necessitate exploring another explanation. Objectivity would work that way."

Simply having more models, by itself, is no sign of objectivity. Some models can be dismissed out of hand because they are not consistent with empirical observations. Of course, I would not forbid anyone from tinkering with counter-factual models--who knows, one of them might yet be good for something other than understanding how nature works. I am willing to grant that counter-factual models which are no good for explaining how nature works, might turn out to be useful algorithms in game-theory or managing nuclear power plant coolant valves or some other radically simplified field of endeavor.

Sonship: "Some of you guys are overly protective as if loss of sacred religious dogma is at stake."

Overly protective of what? You lost me there.

Originally posted by sonship

Your questions are based on the false assumption that evolutionary theory only works if it can be used to predict this exact outcome, rather than a vast range of possible outcomes of which this particular reality was one.

You don't think it is a valid exploration then.
I think several models is a worthwhile scientific way if given that ...[text shortened]... who questions things which seem not to be THE one and only explanation of life's history.

You quote me saying: "Evolution does not predict the past - it explains the past. The past has happened. Of course it is possible." and you reply by saying "I think that is called question begging. You are not talking about a religious faith."

No it is not question begging. Empirical evidence - what we actually observed - requires an explanation. When we observe X it is not rational to try and demonstrate with probabilities or with reasoned argument or with scripture that there is no X; the brute, objective, empirical observation of X is something we have to work with and any explanation that fails to allow for X has to be false, because the empirical evidence shows it to be false.

Karl Popper has his limitations but science does generally accept that, while it is hard to prove anything true, we can certainly prove things to be false. One way to prove ideas are false is by pointing to empirical evidence. Any theory that says evolution has happened differently to the empirical evidence is false. For example, if you could observe (and convince us with evidence) a porcupine born from a dog (your own example) that would conflict with all our theories and the theories would have to be abandoned (but you have not made such an observation - let us know when you do).

Now it may be that someone finds statistical evidence to show that some aspect of evolution is impossible, but if that statistical evidence conflicts with the empirical evidence, then I am afraid the statistical evidence (which is speculative) will have to be revised. This is especially likely because statistics cannot validly apply to past events, which have a probability of 1, only 1 and nothing but 1.

That is not faith - it is science. Prove me wrong.