Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of

# Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

46 replies to this topic

### #16 Copasetic

Copasetic

438579088 what am I?

• Member
• 4,237 posts
• Joined:12 Apr 2008
• Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:33 PM

Just to add to Doug's great post on "random" and "chance", this is something I've addressed here a lot with creationists. It seems you guys either weren't paying attention in high school biology class or you like knocking down your own strawmen.

Evolution (the biological fact) is fuel by something that is the exact opposite of random: natural selection. Let me say that again, biological evolution is driven by something not random. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of organisms in a population. I've repeated that to creationists so many times its not even funny. I often wonder if, because of their lack luster education and understanding of science, they have difficulty understanding the word differential. So let me say it in another way: the chance that one organism in a population will survive and reproduce is not the same chance that another member of the population will. If evolution were random, the chances that each organism in a population would survive and reproduce would be equal.

Considering this is something I've covered before I have a nice post on the math and 'chances' of evolution typed up for you already;

Copasetic, on 28 February 2010 - 08:22 PM, said:

Now consider it mathematically with a game. Yes a game. Here is the rules. We have 3 dice, each dice represents a nucleotide. We are going to build a gene and we have two ways of doing so. The first way, we will assume the rules Dembski provides for us. Now, arbitrary rules notwithstanding, I'm going to be the environment and decide that any gene that will be useful to a population must arise within 25 generations-After that cut off, it would simply be too late to be useful in a changed environment. Each roll of the dice, we will consider a generation.

Game 1
To search for a particular gene we are going to do as Dembski suggests and rely upon blind chance alone. The target in this case is, or sequence of our gene is 6/6/6 (that's a 6 on each die).

Throwing one die we have a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 and 5/6 chance to land on anything but 6. Thus we have 6 possible outcomes of our roll. With 2 dice we would have (6*6) 36 potential outcomes and with 3 dice we would have 216 potential outcomes (6*6*6).

Of all outcomes, only one is 6/6/6 so we have chance of 1/216. Certainly not astronomical odds, but considering our limitation of generations, I wouldn't bet on it.

So how many generations would we expect to go through before we reach our target gene?

Its going to get a little more mathy, but I think you'll be able to follow along. If not, just point out where I'm loosing you.

Let's, for arbitrary reasons, call the probability we succeed on the first roll, A. The probability then for succeeding on the second roll would simply be A(1-A). (Follow how we did that?)

So the probability of succeeding in finding the target on the third roll is simply A(1-A)(1-A). See the pattern evolving here?

The fourth roll; A(1-A)(1-A)(1-A) etc. We can rewrite this as A(1-A)3 =A4, where A4 simply denotes the roll.

From this we can derive a simple statistical rule. Since the term (1-A) is simply multiplied to the rule for each additional roll, we can say that the probability to succeed on any roll (An) is simply A(1-A)(n-1).

For example, the probability to find our target gene on the 27th roll (generation) is simply A(1-A)26.

Since, the game must be completed by a certain generation, we have an expectation for completion which we'll arbitrarily call E.

The expectation is simply the sum of all of the probabilities of each round till the game is won. Mathematically that simply means that;

ΣE*A(1-A)(E-1).

Since our expectation has to be a positive real number, we know it can be any number from 0 to infinity. Taking the limit of the above equation we would get;

A*1/A2=E, where is the expected number of generations to find our target.

To solve this, remember that A is the probability of succeeding on the first roll or 1/216. So plugging that into our equation we get E=216.

Obviously then, we wouldn't expect evolution to produce target complexity without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Or would we?

Game 2
In this game we are going to play more akin to how I described evolution above. By using blind trials but saving positive outcomes into the next generation. A positive outcome in this example would be a 6.

So whenever a die is rolled that lands on a 6, that die is saved to the next round (a free pass).

We can then go about calculating the number of rounds or generations we would expect to play to win the game.

Consider when we roll 1 die, we had a 1/6 chance of 6 and a 5/6 chance of not 6. To calculate our expectation, arbitrarily defined as x, we;

Equation 1:
x1 = 1 + 5/6 * x1
1/6*x1 = 1
x1 = 6

With 2 dice we have a 1/36 chance of finishing the game in one step 6/6, a 10/36 chance of rolling one 6 and a 25/36 chance of rolling no 6 at all, thus;
Equation 2:
x2 = 1 + 10/36* x1 + 25/36* x2
11/36*x2 = 1 + 10/36 * 6 (the 6 comes from the above answer to equation 1)
x2= 36/11 * 8/3 = 96/11 or that is we expect on average to play the game 8.72 rounds

So with 3 dice we have a 1/216 chance of finishing the game in one step, a 75/216 chance of rolling a single 6, a 15/216 chance of rolling two 6’s and a 125/216 chance of rolling no 6 at all.

So our equation becomes;
Equation 3:
x3 = 1 + 75/216 * x1 + 15/216 * x2 + 125/216 *x3
91/216*x3 = 1 + 75/216 * 6 + 15/216 * 96/11
x3 = 216/91 * 487/132
x3 = 8766/1001 or 8.76 rounds

We then would most often, win the game. The implication of this then, if you haven't followed it through the two games, is that by adding selection and heredity into the mix evolution by natural selection is capable of generating complex information. And in it does this in a evolutionary timely manner with the assistance of heredity and selection.

In fact, the argument gets worse for Dembski, the more we liken it to the real world. Because in evolution, there are many, many, many simultaneous trials (organisms) each playing the game.

### #17 runekazter

runekazter

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 52 posts
• Joined:09 Jun 2011

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:39 PM

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.

CETI by Carl Sagan
Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

Edited by runekazter, 06 May 2013 - 06:20 PM.

### #18 Rlyeh

Rlyeh

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,477 posts
• Joined:01 Jan 2011
• Gender:Male
• Location:The sixth circle

• Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:07 PM

runekazter, on 06 May 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.
Who are these evolutionists? And why are you throwing out a page number without a book?

### #19 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Telekinetic

• Member
• 6,835 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:10 PM

Frank Merton, on 06 May 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

I look at a forest and mountain range, and I see randomness, no design.
Hey!  Wait a minute!

I study forests and trees.  I look at them and I see order.  Order created by the flow of energy through the system.  Douglas-firs make food using solar energy.  Tussock-moths eat Douglas-fir needles, getting their energy that way.  Insect-eating birds eat tussock-moth caterpillars, getting their energy that way.  An acre may contain two million pounds of wood and three tons of caterpillar, the two million pounds of tree being defended by four pounds of bird.  Those numbers are controlled by the energy flows.  Order everywhere - and nothing but energy controlling it.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #20 Einsteinium

Einsteinium

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,294 posts
• Joined:09 Nov 2012
• Gender:Male
• Location:Wisconsin USA

• "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
-Buddha

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:23 PM

Alter2Ego, on 05 May 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1.
Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

No they would not have.been able to- because of the fact that if the elements did not have this precise relationship then none of us would exist to make the observation that they have a precise relationship.

Quote

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

It absolutely could have resulted from chance aka spontaneously aka by accident. I don't know if it is evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer/God, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is evidence for a lack of complete understanding on our part.

Quote

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Evolution/natural selection has mountains of evidence backing it up. The big bang admittedly has less evidence for it, but it has objective evidence, which is more than the God hypothesis has. Your argument here holds no water. We do not know if the elements could be interrelated in any other way than they are. The fact is that there could be a trillion universes for every one universe like ours, but you will always 100% find yourself in a universe like ours. In the face of infinity, either infinite time, or infinite universes (take your pick) even if our type of universe is so rare that it only happens one out of every 10^100,000 universes. Which is an unimaginably large number, even with these slim to nothing odds our universe is 100% assured to happen. Given either infinite time or infinite universes. Infinite time would mean that there are unimaginably long stretches of time in between life supporting universes, infinite universes would mean literally an infinite number of universes like ours, even with such unlikely odds.

Creator God, no creator God, infinite time or infinite universes. We just don't know, but it sure is awe inspiring to think about!

### #21 Einsteinium

Einsteinium

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,294 posts
• Joined:09 Nov 2012
• Gender:Male
• Location:Wisconsin USA

• "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
-Buddha

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:28 PM

runekazter, on 06 May 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.

CETI by Carl Sagan
Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

And where do these numbers come from? How do we know what the probability of life evolving on a given planet are? The equations that lead to these numbers are probably good equations, but the numbers you plug into these equations ultimately are just guesses. Garbage in-> garbage out.

### #22 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Telekinetic

• Member
• 6,835 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:31 PM

Copasetic, on 06 May 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

I often wonder if, because of their lack luster education and understanding of science, they have difficulty understanding the word differential.
A comment on fundamentalist education:

A friend of mine was home schooled.  Her mother was of a strongly fundamentalist bent and didn't think the public schools would do a good job.

After a home-schooled high school, she attended a Bible college and got a "Bachelors" degree.  She then transferred to a big state university, intending to continue with graduate school.  She flunked out of that program in her first semester because she had little training in reading and writing and none at all in the sciences (She failed both Freshman algebra and chemistry.).  In order to pursue her chosen career she will have to repeat her entire "education."  Her mother failed her and her Bible college defrauded her.  She is hopelessly unprepared for even a job as a sales clerk.

Lest you think I am against home schooling:  another friend of mine was home schooled during junior high and grade school.  His parents made him do a "senior project."  He was looking for ideas for a project involving historical research, so I gave him my grandparent's names and some background and he traced them for me using records from Ellis Island.  I hadn't known my great-grandmother's name, but there it was on the passenger manifest.  This person got a scholarship to study in Europe and is now a professor at St. Andrews in Scotland.

An acquaintance teaches at a Baptist high school.  The subject - biology and evolution!  He gets a lot of flack from the parents and students, but defends it with this line:  "Evolution is the basis for modern biology.  If you go on to any sort of career in the life sciences, you will be expected to know and use it.  You can believe anything you want, but if don't put down the right answers on the test, you will not pass."  He says that all but six of his students who went on to medical and/or natural science programs have wound up accepting evolution.  Of those six, three majored in geology.  Two of those are working as mud loggers where knowledge of evolution doesn't matter.  The third was unemployable in the sciences and settled for a job as a curator of a creationist pseudo-science museum.  It's really hard to believe in creationism and work with living things.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #23 Rlyeh

Rlyeh

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,477 posts
• Joined:01 Jan 2011
• Gender:Male
• Location:The sixth circle

• Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:37 PM

Einsteinium, on 06 May 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

And where do these numbers come from? How do we know what the probability of life evolving on a given planet are? The equations that lead to these numbers are probably good equations, but the numbers you plug into these equations ultimately are just guesses. Garbage in-> garbage out.
I thought talkorigins gave a better indepth look at the probability of abiogenesis, not just throwing random numbers out.
http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

### #24 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Telekinetic

• Member
• 6,835 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:38 PM

Einsteinium, on 06 May 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

Evolution/natural selection has mountains of evidence backing it up.
About 2.1 MILLION published and refereed journal articles, I am told - by a local geology professor.

Evolution never disproved creationism.  It just buried it.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #25 runekazter

runekazter

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 52 posts
• Joined:09 Jun 2011

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:43 PM

Doug1o29, on 06 May 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

A comment on fundamentalist education:

A friend of mine was home schooled.  Her mother was of a strongly fundamentalist bent and didn't think the public schools would do a good job.

After a home-schooled high school, she attended a Bible college and got a "Bachelors" degree.  She then transferred to a big state university, intending to continue with graduate school.  She flunked out of that program in her first semester because she had little training in reading and writing and none at all in the sciences (She failed both Freshman algebra and chemistry.).  In order to pursue her chosen career she will have to repeat her entire "education."  Her mother failed her and her Bible college defrauded her.  She is hopelessly unprepared for even a job as a sales clerk.

Lest you think I am against home schooling:  another friend of mine was home schooled during junior high and grade school.  His parents made him do a "senior project."  He was looking for ideas for a project involving historical research, so I gave him my grandparent's names and some background and he traced them for me using records from Ellis Island.  I hadn't known my great-grandmother's name, but there it was on the passenger manifest.  This person got a scholarship to study in Europe and is now a professor at St. Andrews in Scotland.

An acquaintance teaches at a Baptist high school.  The subject - biology and evolution!  He gets a lot of flack from the parents and students, but defends it with this line:  "Evolution is the basis for modern biology.  If you go on to any sort of career in the life sciences, you will be expected to know and use it.  You can believe anything you want, but if don't put down the right answers on the test, you will not pass."  He says that all but six of his students who went on to medical and/or natural science programs have wound up accepting evolution.  Of those six, three majored in geology.  Two of those are working as mud loggers where knowledge of evolution doesn't matter.  The third was unemployable in the sciences and settled for a job as a curator of a creationist pseudo-science museum.  It's really hard to believe in creationism and work with living things.
Doug
really?? lol?

### #26 Einsteinium

Einsteinium

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,294 posts
• Joined:09 Nov 2012
• Gender:Male
• Location:Wisconsin USA

• "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
-Buddha

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:56 PM

Rlyeh, on 06 May 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

I thought talkorigins gave a better indepth look at the probability of abiogenesis, not just throwing random numbers out.
http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

Thank you for posting this! I love this stuff.

### #27 runekazter

runekazter

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 52 posts
• Joined:09 Jun 2011

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:56 PM

Einsteinium, on 06 May 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

And where do these numbers come from? How do we know what the probability of life evolving on a given planet are? The equations that lead to these numbers are probably good equations, but the numbers you plug into these equations ultimately are just guesses. Garbage in-> garbage out.
they aren't my numbers they are from carl sagan -garbage, really? everything from that post was not mine but from an article on this subject.

Edited by runekazter, 06 May 2013 - 07:05 PM.

### #28 Copasetic

Copasetic

438579088 what am I?

• Member
• 4,237 posts
• Joined:12 Apr 2008
• Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:57 PM

runekazter, on 06 May 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.

CETI by Carl Sagan
Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

Until we know how the first replicators arose (we don't currently) any "calculation" about the probability of them arising is meaningless.

### #29 Copasetic

Copasetic

438579088 what am I?

• Member
• 4,237 posts
• Joined:12 Apr 2008
• Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:59 PM

runekazter, on 06 May 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

they aren't my numbers they are from carl sagan -garbage, really?

Its blunt, but true. You simply can't calculate a conditional probability when you don't know the conditions.

### #30 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Telekinetic

• Member
• 6,835 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:06 PM

runekazter, on 06 May 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

really?? lol?
Really.

What's a "runekazter?"
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users