New CSICOP Column

Posted 18 August 2005 by Jason Rosenhouse

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/new-csicop-colu-3.html

My most recent column for CSICOP's Creation Watch website is now available. I'm talking about mathematics for a change, specifically the attempts by creationists to use probability theory to refute evolution. Be warned, however, that this is part one of a two-part column. So don't be too annoyed by the cliffhanger at the end!

8 Comments

steve · 18 August 2005

Jason, like many others, have made excellent arguments against ID nonsense. ID supporters of course never understand/admit that. They don't seem to get that IC, CSI, and all those dumb arguments against evolution (i.e. the 2nd Law of Thermo) have been beaten to death over and over. On Slashdot a moment ago, I saw a quotation which relates to the situation:

"Not Hercules could have knock'd out his brains, for he had none." -- Shakespeare

Frank Schmidt · 18 August 2005

Warning! Quibble ahead!
It's "thymine" not thiamine, which is a vitamin.

Jim Wynne · 19 August 2005

Nice piece. In a discussion recently with my creationist sister-in-law, she regurgitated the improbability argument, this time applied to abiogenesis. She said that some (unnamed) mathematician had calculated the probability against it to be [1 in some huge number]. Using the deck of cards again, I pointed out the fact that the number of possible unique orders in which the deck could be arranged is equal to 52! (another very large number) and if we encounter a deck of cards laying on a table we must conclude, using her reasoning, that the cards had been miraculously arranged, because there is only a 1/(52!) chance that the cards could be arranged in that particular order. She changed the subject.

Jason Rosenhouse · 19 August 2005

Frank-

Incredible! I actually had thymine in my original draft, but the spellchecker for Microsoft Word told me it was supposed to be thiamine. Blast! And to think I always tell my students not to rely on spellcheckers alone.

Thank you for pointing out the error.

Creationist Troll · 20 August 2005

Nice piece. In a discussion recently with my creationist sister-in-law, she regurgitated the improbability argument, this time applied to abiogenesis. She said that some (unnamed) mathematician had calculated the probability against it to be [1 in some huge number]. Using the deck of cards again, I pointed out the fact that the number of possible unique orders in which the deck could be arranged is equal to 52! (another very large number) and if we encounter a deck of cards laying on a table we must conclude, using her reasoning, that the cards had been miraculously arranged, because there is only a 1/(52!) chance that the cards could be arranged in that particular order. She changed the subject.

Again, more garbage from the evos. The probability of getting some sequence is of course 1.

However, we can assert with some confidence that the number of favorable outcomes will be far smaller than the number of possible outcomes. This seems to show that, while we may not be able to calculate precisely the probability of evolving the genes necessary for eye formation, we can still assert that the probability is very, very small. Have we done it? Can we conclude that it is effectively impossible for evolution to have produced an eye?

Yes.

As an example, suppose that in some organism we find the gene sequence ACGATCT. One source of genetic variation is the point mutation, in which an individual nucleotide is replaced in the next generation with a different nucleotide. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the offspring of our hypothetical organism will possess the gene sequence ATGATCT. By contrast, it is highly unlikely that we will encounter the sequence TGATAAG.

O.K. This doesn't explain how we got the original viable sequence in the first place. This explains nothing.

So even if the odd macromutation caused one of these sequences to appear in some unfortunate organism, natural selection would ensure that the gene was quickly flushed from the population in subsequent generations.

True. Since the genome is highly coded even a minor mistake will probably cause instant death. What does this explain? Not much.

Russell · 20 August 2005

Again, more garbage from the evos. The probability of getting some sequence is of course 1.
— a Mr. C. Troll

EXACTLY! That's the point!

O.K. This doesn't explain how we got the original viable sequence in the first place. This explains nothing.

And if it did, it still wouldn't explain how we have something rather than nothing. It would still explain nothing.

What does this explain? Not much.

That's right. That's because natural selection is such a hand-slapping-forehead obvious explanation now that we know the mechanics of genetics, there's not much TO explain. But you'd be amazed. There are STILL creationists out there who find it just too mysterious not to invoke the supernatural.

Jim Wynne · 21 August 2005

Again, more garbage from the evos. The probability of getting some sequence is of course 1.

In creationist math there's no difference between "impossible" and "improbable," thus CT's failure to get the point, I guess.

Creationist troll · 21 August 2005

However, we can assert with some confidence that the number of favorable outcomes will be far smaller than the number of possible outcomes.

but then comes...

Again, more garbage from the evos. The probability of getting some sequence is of course 1. EXACTLY! That's the point!

WHOOOOOSH! Right over the head. I know evos aren't too smart, but c'mon try to make it a little less obvious.