Given enough time anything can happen, really!

Originally posted by dj2becker
So 'evolution' as you define it cannot take place without 'parents' to pass on the genetic code to the 'offspring'?

This is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The first error you made in your OP, was to pick Shakespeare. Even assuming that a human being came about via purely random typing on a type writer, you should have done your calculation not for Shakespeare, not for all books in existence, but for any possible book. Now redo your calculation and I think you will find quite a big difference. However, you w ...[text shortened]... kespeare can be produced in a remarkably short space of time.
Does anyone have a link for this?

I believe that people have written programs that use evolutions processes and monkeys, and have proven that even something as unique as Shakespeare can be produced in a remarkably short space of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

Originally posted by Palynka
This is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.

So what are all the necessary conditions then?

Originally posted by Palynka
This is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.

Surely it is the only necessary condition? Of course with the understanding that a 'parent' may be a single cell, or anything capable of self replication.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what are all the necessary conditions then?

The sufficient condition is enough to prove the denialists wrong.

Do you disagree with the sufficient condition I highlighted?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think what it is being given credit for is highly unlikely yes.
Kelly

Without arguing for evolution, I want to point out that anyone looking at the issue neutrally, cannot rationally accept your position. Given enough trials (die throws, roulette spins, lotto ticket purchases, etc.,) events that are highly unlikely on a single trial, become likely to have occurred at least once. And of course, we have no data on the probabilities and number of trials concerning the emergence and evolution of life. People pick the analogies and numbers that suit their preconceived conclusions.

This is related to Ion Saliu's Paradox Of N Trials. Some people may find this explanation useful in shaping their views about your argument from incredulity.

In an interesting case where the probability P is 1/N and there are N trials, the probability of success approaches a known limit, about 63%, as N increases. Where there are more than N trials, say M, a limit higher than 63 % is approached, and as M increases further (and P remains the same) it is virtually certain that a success will occur. The general equation is at the following site.

http://saliu.com/theory-of-probability.html

quote:

If p = 1 / N, we can discover an interesting relation between the degree of certainty DC and the number of trials N. The degree of certainty has a limit, when N tends to infinity. Let's analyze a few particular cases.

• Rolling the unbiased dice; actually just one die. The probability to get any one of the point faces is p = 1/6. The degree of certainty DC to get any one of point faces in 6 throws is 66.5%.

• Spinning the roulette wheel. The probability to get any one of the 38 numbers is p = 1/38. The degree of certainty DC to get any one of the numbers in 38 spins is 63.7%.

• Let's look at a case with a very large number of possibilities, therefore a very low probability — a lotto 6/49 game. Total possible combinations in a 6/49 lotto game is 13,983,816. The probability to get any one of the combinations is p = 1/13,983,816. The degree of certainty DC to get any one of the numbers in 13,983,816 drawings is 63.212057% (0.63212057).

unquote

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely it is the only necessary condition? Of course with the understanding that a 'parent' may be a single cell, or anything capable of self replication.

Saying it's a necessary condition seems a very strong statement. If I think of epigenetics I don't think it fits my condition very well. I can think of other potential (but hypothetical) problems with demanding the condition to be necessary.

Of course, most of epigenetic variation is (as the etymology of the word indicates) on top of genetic variation so it's just a minor quibble.

Originally posted by JS357
Without arguing for evolution, I want to point out that anyone looking at the issue neutrally, cannot rationally accept your position. Given enough trials (die throws, roulette spins, lotto ticket purchases, etc.,) events that are highly unlikely on a single trial, become likely to have occurred at least once. And of course, we have no data on the probabilitie ...[text shortened]... to get any one of the numbers in 13,983,816 drawings is 63.212057% (0.63212057).

unquote

Again, evolution on this planet seems to be given a limitless amount of time with
all the right conditions at hand till it was done right! Was that ever true, and if so
for how long was true? I don’t think there ever was a limitless amount of trial
and error let alone one that just lets us keep just the good results that suit life.
Just simply having all the conditions correct, having all the right amount of
material in just the right proportions so that they can mix and connect properly,
then alter them through mutation in order to do all the things evolution is
being credited for is beyond reason in my opinion, not beyond faith of true
believers it seems.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, evolution on this planet seems to be given a limitless amount of time with
all the right conditions at hand till it was done right! Was that ever true, and if so
for how long was true? I don’t think there ever was a limitless amount of trial
and error let alone one that just lets us keep just the good results that suit life.
Just simply having al ...[text shortened]... redited for is beyond reason in my opinion, not beyond faith of true
believers it seems.
Kelly

Nobody said a limitless amount of time was needed. You were the one that set that condition by saying "given enough time".

Originally posted by JS357
Without arguing for evolution, I want to point out that anyone looking at the issue neutrally, cannot rationally accept your position. Given enough trials (die throws, roulette spins, lotto ticket purchases, etc.,) events that are highly unlikely on a single trial, become likely to have occurred at least once. And of course, we have no data on the probabilitie to get any one of the numbers in 13,983,816 drawings is 63.212057% (0.63212057).

unquote

With roulette spins or lotto picks once a spin is made or number is picked nothing
about the odds change the next time a spin or pick is made. With chemical
reactions if you need X and Y to make something and if X gets altered into Q due to
it getting mixed wrong you lose all chances of making whatever it was you needed
X and Y for. Not only would that make material precious, but it would greatly limit
your chances of being able to make another throw or spin. So evolution does not
get limitless chances over countless years!
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
Given enough time (i.e. if time is infinite and with a cardinality of time bigger than the cardinality of possible events) then anything that could happen will.

Note that for this condition on cardinalities to be true, then I'm excluding the definition of possible events as being time conditional (i.e. "humans will evolve" is an event but not "humans will evolve before time t" is not).

Does your stipulation regarding cardinality overcome the following, so that the definite statement "...anything that could happen, will" is valid?

Given an event E having a finite probability 0<P<1 of occurrence on a single trial; as the number of trials N approaches (but does not reach) infinity, the probability that E will occur at least once, approaches (but does not reach) 1 and is given by 1-((1-P)^N)

Originally posted by KellyJay
Think of it this way, evolution is like playing cards except there are a lot more
than 52 in a deck. No matter how fast each hand is dealt you still only get what
was dealt to you. The random mutations are all the feeds natural selection so
getting bad hands (mutations) can end the life, getting non-death threatening hands
(mutations) is still bad if th ...[text shortened]... e is that the deck is
stacked towards life, I see no reason to accept that what so ever.
Kelly

“...The random mutations are all the feeds natural selection so getting bad hands (mutations) can end the life, getting non-death threatening hands
(mutations) is still bad if they alter the life form in away that does not advance it, ...”

the disadvantageous mutations are irrelevant because natural selection continually weeds them out thus they would have no long-term effect/change on the gene pool.

“...while getting a good hand moves you forward. ...”

does that mean you acknowledge that advantageous mutations exist? -if so, that would be a start.
Only the advantageous mutations are relevant because, out of the ones that are either advantageous or disadvantageous (as opposed to being neither) , natural selection would select for only those that are advantageous thus only the beneficial ones have a long-term effect/change on the gene pool.

“...The belief here is that the deck is
stacked towards life, ...”

NO. That is NOT our belief.
We KNOW that most mutations are disadvantageous to life.
We also know that this fact is irrelevant because natural selection would select for only those that are advantageous and weed-out those that are disadvantageous.
Thus the ratio of bad mutations to good ones is relevant to the long-term effect/change on the gene pool and the species.

Originally posted by JS357
Does your stipulation regarding cardinality overcome the following, so that the definite statement "...anything that could happen, will" is valid?

Given an event E having a finite probability 0<P<1 of occurrence on a single trial; as the number of trials N approaches (but does not reach) infinity, the probability that E will occur at least once, approaches (but does not reach) 1 and is given by 1-((1-P)^N)

Almost surely. 😀

The event happening is a probability one event, if you want to be precise.

Edit - I don't need the statement on cardinality for that, infinity suffices. Why I need that statement is because if "E happening at t=T" is an event then the cardinality of time is smaller than the cardinality of possible events and so many (and possibly almost all) will not happen.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With roulette spins or lotto picks once a spin is made or number is picked nothing
about the odds change the next time a spin or pick is made. With chemical
reactions if you need X and Y to make something and if X gets altered into Q due to
it getting mixed wrong you lose all chances of making whatever it was you needed
X and Y for. Not only would that ...[text shortened]... another throw or spin. So evolution does not
get limitless chances over countless years!
Kelly

The formulas are the same.

If the probability P of a particular outcome R is between zero and one, where R depends on the occurrence of a specific sequence of events E1, E2, E3, etc., each event having its own non-zero probability, and where the first failure of the right event to occur at the right place in the sequence prevents R from occurring on that trial, then as the number of trials increases, the probability of the right sequence for R, and therefore of R, occurring, approaches 1.

Taking R to be the emergence and/or evolution of life, you could even add some "killer E" that had a probability of happening between zero and one, that would, say, make a planet's sun go supernova and vaporize the planet. This would just mean looking for another planet, which might have different E's that lead to a somewhat different R and we could then argue about whether to call it truly life.🙂

If the emergence and/or evolution of life is thought to be described in ANY probabilistic way that has a probability P for life emerging that is between zero and one, then the emergence of life becomes more probable, as more trials occur. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Palynka
Saying it's a necessary condition seems a very strong statement. If I think of epigenetics I don't think it fits my condition very well. I can think of other potential (but hypothetical) problems with demanding the condition to be necessary.

Of course, most of epigenetic variation is (as the etymology of the word indicates) on top of genetic variation so it's just a minor quibble.

OK, I focused on the 'parent' and didn't see the 'genetic code'.
I at first thought that parents are a necessary condition for evolution, as evolution is by definition change over successive generations but maybe not, since a star can evolve over time without generations.