URL: https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/probability-emo.html
Creationist anti-evolution and anti-abiogenesis probability 'arguments' come up with boringly tedious regularity. Why creationists cannot have enough faith to believe that their "God" could create a world in which the earth and the waters could bring forth life as Genesis 1 has it, is beyond me. Their faith is not strong enough, I suppose, and they have to believe in magic.
They often quote a huge number, claiming that this is the probability of a certain protein or gene forming "at random". Well, I'm a formally qualified and experienced mathematics teacher, and I will repeat what my own teachers used to growl at me, "SHOW YOUR WORKING", which, of course, creationists never do, because they cannot, and they are averse to work anyway.
In addition, quoting just a Big Scary Number™, as creationists often do, betrays complete innumeracy. Probabilities are expressed in ratios or fractions. Expressed as a fraction, a probability can only range between zero (never gonna happen) to one (certain to happen).
Creationist anti-evolution and anti-abiogenesis probability 'arguments' come up with boringly tedious regularity. Why creationists cannot have enough faith to believe that their "God" could create a world in which the earth and the waters could bring forth life as Genesis 1 has it, is beyond me. Their faith is not strong enough, I suppose, and they have to believe in magic.
They often quote a huge number, claiming that this is the probability of a certain protein or gene forming "at random". Well, I'm a formally qualified and experienced mathematics teacher, and I will repeat what my own teachers used to growl at me, "SHOW YOUR WORKING", which, of course, creationists never do, because they cannot, and they are averse to work anyway.
In addition, quoting just a Big Scary Number™, as creationists often do, betrays complete innumeracy. Probabilities are expressed in ratios or fractions. Expressed as a fraction, a probability can only range between zero (never gonna happen) to one (certain to happen).
The fallacy is based on a simple misapplication of probability theory, where the probability of a bunch of events is assumed to be the product of the probabilities of each individual event. Pascal (a pioneer in formulating probability theory) will be turning in his grave. The other, related fallacy, very common among naïve creationists, is that evolution is purely "random", "accidental" or a matter of "chance". This is false, and if knowingly spread, a lie. I'm sure that Jesus would be proud.
For example, if we consider five mutations, each with the probability of occurring of 1/100, then the probability of all of them happening, according to the fallacy, is
1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 = 1/10,000,000,000 (one in ten billion).
In other words, we'd need 10 billion trials, on average, to get 5 mutations.
Why is this a fallacy? Because the calculation is only valid for totally independent events.
In other situations, the events are not independent. Here, we have a population of 100 "creatures", each with 5 elements that may mutate with a 1/100 chance upon reproduction. Each mutation is advantageous.
A creature with advantageous mutations is more likely to reproduce more. (The biological definition of "reproductively advantageous".)
Each generation is represented by a set of numbers. Each number represents a creature.
The value of the number is the number of mutations it possesses.
See how many trials it takes to get our "one in 10 billion" chance of 5 mutations!
Click refresh/reload to re-run the simulation from my page as many times as you wish. The source code for the simulation can be found here, @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/script-language-javascript-type.html
Related articles.
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, when creationists and Unidentifiable Flying Intelligent Designer spotters start talking about probability. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter
The Failures of Mathematical Anti -Evolutionism https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/05/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/
Do probability arguments refute evolution? https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.php
Big scary number theory. https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/calculating-protein-probability.html
https://ncse.ngo/creationism-and-pseudomathematics
Nota Bene: This is an argument, not from "evolutionist" science, but from mathematics, which cannot be gainsaid unless a fault in the mathematics can be found and proved.
Generation=1 Trials=100
00000000010000000000000010001000000010001000000000
10000000000000100000000000010000000000000000001000
Generation=2 Trials=200
11111111121111111100000000000000000100100000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
Generation=3 Trials=300
22111111121111111110000000000000010010010000000000
00000000000000000000100000001000000000000000000000
Generation=4 Trials=400
22222211111111111111110000000000000010010010000010
00010000001000000100000100001001000000000000000000
Generation=5 Trials=500
22222222222211111111111111120000001000000010010010
00001000010000001000000100000100001001000000000000
Generation=6 Trials=600
22222222222222222222222222111111111111111000000100
10000101100100000100001000000100000010000010000100
Generation=7 Trials=700
12222222222222222221322222222222222222222222222222
22101111101111111000000100100011012001000001000011
Generation=8 Trials=800
34122222222222222222212222222222222222222222222222
22210111110111111100000010010001201200101000100001
Generation=9 Trials=900
44312222222222222222221222222222232222222223222222
22221011111011111110000001001000020120010100010000
Generation=10 Trials=1000
44443122222222122222222212222222222322222222232232
22222220111110111111100000020010000201200101001100
Generation=11 Trials=1100
44444444312222222212222222221222222222232222222423
22322122222011121011111110000002001000020120010100
Generation=12 Trials=1200
44434444444444444431222222221222222222122222222223
22322222322322122222011121011111110000002002000020
Generation=13 Trials=1300
44444444444444444444434444444444443312222232212322
22222122222222223223222223222221222220111210111111
Generation=14 Trials=1400
44444444444444344455444444444444444444444444444444
44444444444443443331222223221232222222122122222233
Plus, if I may, they're probability "calculations" never seem to exclude impossibilities either. For example if you had 200 hydrogen molecules and 100 oxygen molecules in a container and added energy what's the probability of something like a molecule of H3O14 forming? No need to calculate... it's zero. Molecules will bond with other molecules in only very specific ways, which narrows down the "odds" tremendously. (This refers to the anti-abiogenesis arguments and the possibility of complex molecules forming in the first place.)
ReplyDelete