Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IamMoose · 09-23-2004, 07:12 AM

Could anyone comment on this for me, offered by a friend in our never ending debate over whether life could be random or not? The friend is a Christian, whereas I am not.

Quote:

The problem of genetic improbability

From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation
Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission.

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.

Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.

The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.

In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.

When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!

This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:

Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.

Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé has made no secret of his skepticism:

What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing DÜrer's (Matt, I can't get the 'u' to go small for me there!) "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Grassé, 104.

In 1967 a group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians met to consider whether random mutations and natural selection could qualify as the mechanism of evolutionary change. The answer of the mathematicians was "No." Morris, 64-65; Sunderland, 128-36. Participants at the symposium, all evolutionists, recognized the need for some type of mechanism to reduce the odds against evolution. In the words of Dr. Murray Eden of M.I.T.:

What I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense. Sunderland, 138.

Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states:

We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution.... We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28.

Thus, several decades have only confirmed the observation of Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959):

[I]t is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, "a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe" -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare. Fix, 196.

I am really not terribly knowledgeable about these things and have no idea if this is accurate or not.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-23-2004, 07:25 AM

Well, there's a lot of stuff there that's just plain wrong.

Quote:

According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.

I don't know where this comes from, but one mutation in a HOX-gene (the ones that regulate body shape) could produce an extra appendage. Evolution generally involves one mutation at a time, not five.

Quote:

Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66)

Most mutations are non-harmful. Mutations are usually neutral.

Quote:

Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!

This appears to be the "coin-tossing fallacy".

For example: with 6 billion people on Earth, there is a 1 in 3 billion chance that your father would be the man that he was (rather than some other man), and the same for your mother. Repeat that process for each gene you inherited from each parent, and figure in your grandparents etc, and you soon reach an astronomical number. This doesn't make you "impossible", however.

With these baseless statistics to go on, the rest of the article crumbles.

justsumner · 09-23-2004, 07:37 AM

this writer clearly misunderstands many aspects of evolution such as drift, founder-effect, random mutation...etc.

IamMoose · 09-23-2004, 07:51 AM

Thanks for the responses everyone

. My understanding of genetics is limited to a class I took in fifth form, unfortunately, but even I can see that the odds against evolution are not 'incalculable,' as is my friend's personal opinion .. if they were, none of us would be here. I am inclined to think that arguing such things as odds is a little pointless anyway because ultimately, if we're here then we're here and it doesn't MATTER how unlikely that is. But some people like to throw random numbers around and far be it from me to deny them this simple pleasure

Sven · 09-23-2004, 08:12 AM

More on Grasse (see the quote above). He also wrote: ""Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world"

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html

That is, he disagreed with the theory (the explanation), not the fact of evolution.

Ambrose is apparently a theistic evolutionist, not a creationist:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...4.html#quote62

Concerning Huxley:
"The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage."
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Doesn't sound like as if he had a problem with horse evolution.

William Fix is apparently a crackpot, who uses tactics similar to those of creationists:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html

A bit on Murray Eden can be found here:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/science.html

Wickramasinghe is the co-author of Hoyle's book "Evolution from Space" - need I say more?

Very little to find on Himmelfarb - except for that she's one of those creationists who tried to use the piltdown man hoax against evolution.

To summarize: Tell your discussion partner to restrict himself to arguments and to omit stupid quotes.

BillyTheKat · 09-23-2004, 09:34 AM

What I don't particularly get is why disproving evolution theory automatically proves intelligent design. It looks like one huge argument from incredulity to me; "Well, if evolution is false, then of course something must be behind it all..."

anthrosciguy · 09-23-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyTheKat

What I don't particularly get is why disproving evolution theory automatically proves intelligent design. It looks like one huge argument from incredulity to me; "Well, if evolution is false, then of course something must be behind it all..."

It's a false dilemma, and it's really common in pseudoscience and fringe science of all kinds. Of course it's a staple of creationism and ID. The idea is that if you show that one idea is wrong, the other idea must be right. But this is like saying if 2+2=5 is wrong, then 3x6=5 must be right. They bnoth could be wrong, saying one thing is wrong says nothing at all about the other.

And of course the problem with many of these pseudosciences, and this is definitely true of creationism and ID, is that they don't show evolution to be wrong. What they usually do is to point to controversies and disagreements within the theory, which is normal in science, and suggest to impressionable but uninformed listeners that this is a sign that the theory is collapsing (and they often use a strawman version of the theory to boot). Of course it isn't, but even if it were, it wouldn't lend any validity to the pseudoscience being pushed as an alternative. That alternative has to be able to stand on its own.

Thi is used a lot, by many different types of pseudoscience and fringe science people, because it makes sense to many uninformed people who don't see the fallacy in reasoning behind it. It's important when trying to reach these people to point out the fallacy in this argument as clearly and simply as possible.

Worldtraveller · 09-23-2004, 09:58 AM

For your friend who likes to point to large probabilities, ask him to play "Creationist Poker" with you.

Here's how it works:
You play the 'evolutionist', which means you can play 5 card draw, all standard rules. He plays the 'creationist', which means, he gets the same cards, same rules, with this exception: He never gets to look at his card until the end of each hand.

If nothing else, it should easily show the difference between totally random, which is the creatinist strawman of how evolution works, and some randomness with selection.

Cheers, and I want 10% of your winnings,
Lane

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen · 09-23-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities.

But it is not necessary for the mutations to occur simultaneously. Some ancestor could have aquired mutation A some other mutation B etc.

And the math seems wrong to me, even after I figured out that

Quote:

In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

should read

Quote:

In other words, the probability is 1 in 1e8 X 1e8 X 1e8 X 1e8 X 1e8, or 1 in 1e40. If one hundred trillion (1e14) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1e17 seconds), the resulting population (1e31) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

If the chance that the gene at a specific locus will mutate to gene A from a nonA gene is 1e-8.
If we assume a constant population ( the environment is bound to support a limited number ) of 1e14 ( of all genotypes );

Initially, the population of gene A would increase by 1e14*1e-8 = 1e6 per second.

If the rate were constant the gene A population would reach 1e14 in 1e8 seconds = 3.16 years. The rate is ofcourse not constant, because as the gene A population increases more and more will mutate into non-A.

The math is too hairy for me (any volunteers?), but it seems reasonable to assume that within 100 years you'd have reached a state of equilibrium between A and non-A, the relative frequency of either would be 0.5.

This ofcourse happens simultaneuosly for all the gene loci. So after 100 years the relative frequency of 5 mutated genes in one bacterium would be 0.5^5, or about 0.03, a population of 3e12.

Considering that 100 years might be on the longish side, and I ignored improved reproductive success of the gene combination, this paints quite a different picture, doesn't it?

IamMoose · 10-01-2004, 06:29 AM

Thank you everyone for your replies, even though a lot of it went over my head

. I passed some of it on to my friend, who of course paid no attention whatsoever.

I decided that it is really better for me NOT to argue with Creationists in future, because arguing with them just gives credence to claims that I think are ridiculous. After all, I wouldn't argue with a person who tried to convince me that hobbits exist .. I'd just shrug and say 'whatever.' If you argue with people, they immediately think that they must have a case.

I am still interested though, just for a personal sake, to hear people's thoughts on this matter as it helps my own understanding.

09-23-2004, 09:58 AM	#8
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	...and another thing. For your friend who likes to point to large probabilities, ask him to play "Creationist Poker" with you. Here's how it works: You play the 'evolutionist', which means you can play 5 card draw, all standard rules. He plays the 'creationist', which means, he gets the same cards, same rules, with this exception: He never gets to look at his card until the end of each hand. If nothing else, it should easily show the difference between totally random, which is the creatinist strawman of how evolution works, and some randomness with selection. Cheers, and I want 10% of your winnings, Lane

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2004, 07:37 AM	#3
justsumner Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44'32N 69' 40W Posts: 374	this writer clearly misunderstands many aspects of evolution such as drift, founder-effect, random mutation...etc.

09-23-2004, 07:51 AM	#4
IamMoose Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: On the fringes of the Lake District, UK Posts: 9,528	Thanks for the responses everyone . My understanding of genetics is limited to a class I took in fifth form, unfortunately, but even I can see that the odds against evolution are not 'incalculable,' as is my friend's personal opinion .. if they were, none of us would be here. I am inclined to think that arguing such things as odds is a little pointless anyway because ultimately, if we're here then we're here and it doesn't MATTER how unlikely that is. But some people like to throw random numbers around and far be it from me to deny them this simple pleasure

09-23-2004, 08:12 AM	#5
Sven Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here Posts: 10,987	More on Grasse (see the quote above). He also wrote: ""Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world" www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html That is, he disagreed with the theory (the explanation), not the fact of evolution. Ambrose is apparently a theistic evolutionist, not a creationist: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...4.html#quote62 Concerning Huxley: "The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage." www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html Doesn't sound like as if he had a problem with horse evolution. William Fix is apparently a crackpot, who uses tactics similar to those of creationists: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html A bit on Murray Eden can be found here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/science.html Wickramasinghe is the co-author of Hoyle's book "Evolution from Space" - need I say more? Very little to find on Himmelfarb - except for that she's one of those creationists who tried to use the piltdown man hoax against evolution. To summarize: Tell your discussion partner to restrict himself to arguments and to omit stupid quotes.

09-23-2004, 09:34 AM	#6
BillyTheKat Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: West Riding of Yorkshire, UK Posts: 1,706	What I don't particularly get is why disproving evolution theory automatically proves intelligent design. It looks like one huge argument from incredulity to me; "Well, if evolution is false, then of course something must be behind it all..."

10-01-2004, 06:29 AM	#10
IamMoose Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: On the fringes of the Lake District, UK Posts: 9,528	Thank you everyone for your replies, even though a lot of it went over my head . I passed some of it on to my friend, who of course paid no attention whatsoever. I decided that it is really better for me NOT to argue with Creationists in future, because arguing with them just gives credence to claims that I think are ridiculous. After all, I wouldn't argue with a person who tried to convince me that hobbits exist .. I'd just shrug and say 'whatever.' If you argue with people, they immediately think that they must have a case. I am still interested though, just for a personal sake, to hear people's thoughts on this matter as it helps my own understanding.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.