Matt Arnold

I want some advice about an argument which I've often given in response to critics of evolution. Help me clarify or stop using it if it's a bad argument, because I've thought of a problem.

I've often heard them give astronomically high numbers of the odds which they say are against our planet developing conditions appropriate for life. In response I said that probability statistics are like dice. If the odds against throwing ten dice and coming up all boxcars is, let's say, one in a billion, then that means by definition that if you throw them a billion times you expect it to come up all boxcars probably once. So if you give ten dice each to every person in China you'd be surprised if nobody got all boxcars on the first try. If you give it more chances then the odds against it decrease.

Therefore, since there are so many of a certain temperature and size of star in the known universe, that's a lot of chances. (This is setting aside the fact that it's not pure chance anyway. Planets don't just form in the total absence of cause-and-effect influences. These influences tend to create certain kinds of predictable non-chance results. In other words, what else is expected to form, a banana fruitcake?) The number of tries, that is the number of stars, dwarfs the astronomical numbers against a planet forming at the right size, composition and distance from such a star to support liquid water as if it had only one chance to do so. Over the billions of years eventually at least one planet was bound to get the magic ticket. In fact it would be downright miraculous if it never happened.

But then I thought this morning, is this the gambler's fallacy? I'm no expert, so if you see any mistakes, let me know.

Duvenoy

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's kind of like the lotteries run by the states. The odds would make a Vegas pro blush with shame, but sooner or later, someone wins it.

There is a thought that if conditions are right on a planet, life will form. So, perhaps the odds aren't quite as high as one might imagine.

doov

yguy

The analogy fails miserably because someone had to manufacture the dice in such a way that boxcars in any combination are a possibility to begin with.

BRO3886

The analogy still holds becuase it's not actually meant to be taken as tight and direct.

That's kind of the purpose of analogies.

BRO3886

Even so , you could use any natural or un-natural object with more than one possible state and the counter-arguement would still be the same "Given enough goes , result x is certain"

yguy

Then where did all the possibilities, including the "successful" one, come from?

BRO3886

Current theory is the big bang , which itself 'just happened' and 'always was'.

Current theology is some form of deity , which itself 'just happened' and 'always was'.


One requires that supreme simplicity 'popped' into being from nowhere and gradually became more complex.

The other requires that supreme complexity , far outstripping the relative simplicity of life, 'popped' into being from nowhere and decided to start moving things around.

An oversimplification of course (far more choices than those two are available) but it should do.

Eric H

quote BRO3886

Even so , you could use any natural or un-natural object with more than one possible state and the counter-arguement would still be the same "Given enough goes , result x is certain"
------------------------


I feel that no matter how much time there is, or how big the universe is; that you would still need billions of things to happen in a precise way for complex life to evolve to what you see today.

You start of from a single cell and as the cells grow in numbers each cell is in exactly the right place in the body; and then you end up with an adult creature that has a hundred million-million cells, and each cell is in exactly the right place.

Mathematically what are the odds of creating something through the evolution process and getting a hundred million-million components in the right place.

I am told that the odds to get six numbers right out of a possible forty nine numbers to win the English lottery is only about fourteen million to one.

What are the odds to get around ninety nine million-million cells right out of a possible hundred million-million.

I have left a million-million out of the equation just to say that maybe you don’t need one hundred percent success.

How would a creature survive if you mixed up cells for eyes,bones, nose, blood, etc.

Peace

Eric

Albion

They're extremely different from the odds of creating something instantaneously from its component parts and getting all the components in the right place, which is the usual creationist misinterpretation.

Eric H

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematically what are the odds of creating something through the evolution process and getting a hundred million-million components in the right place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote albion
They're extremely different from the odds of creating something instantaneously from its component parts and getting all the components in the right place, which is the usual creationist misinterpretation.
--------------------------------



How much more complex is it to get life right with a hundred million-million cells then life with say ten cells,

Ok so the odds are extremely different but what are we talking about, a million to one, a billion to one, a hundred million-million to one, or some vastly greater number?

peace

Eric