Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS, PART II
Message-ID: <237@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 04:01:41 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.237
Posted: Thu Mar 14 04:01:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 04:01:05 EST
References: <241@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 75

> In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the
> mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists.
> 
> The complaint has be raised in several forms.  The simplest form of
> the argument is like this:  "... the probability of an organism, so
> perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental
> particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could
> never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..."
> ...
> The GROSS ERROR
> here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and
> a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than
> objective, characterizations.
> 
> ...
> Second, in order to make the argument sound a
> little like evolution, it must acknowledge that when two body parts
> join in a favorable configuration, they remain so connected.  Thus,
> the probability is much higher, as one must only deal with 98 other
> parts connecting to this pair correctly.  As one progresses through
> the random joining of body parts, the probability increases, rather
> than remaining the same.
>
> Keebler

I agree that the argument is flawed, but I think the second error, not
the first, is the fatal one.  The argument could just as easily have been
"how could an organism so complex as a human being have evolved through a
random process?"  You can dispute the perfection of the human organism,
but not its complexity.

I feel that the fatal flaw in the argument is that it assumes that evolution
is completely random, i.e. according to the theory the first human must have
suddenly sprung into being after millions of years of random juxtaposition
of genes (or proteins, or body parts, or what have you).  That is not how
evolution works.  Each living organism has descendants.  Most of the
complexity of human beings was already developed in our ape-like ancestors.

Here is a thought experiment.  Imagine that you have 50
dice, and that your goal is to get them all to show 3 on their uppermost
faces by some random process.  You could roll all 50 dice over and over again
until all threes show.  If you threw the dice once a second, the expected time
until success would be (6**50)/2 seconds (for you non-programmers, this means
6 to the 50th power divided by 2).  The reasoning is that, on the average,
you should expect to go through half of the possible arrangements of the dice
before you hit on the right one.

Now suppose that take you one die and roll it until you get a three.  When
that happens, take a second die and roll it until it shows a three.  Continue
this until all of the dice show threes.  This will take much less time than
the above method, about 3 times 50 seconds if you roll once each second.
Here the resoning is that, for each die, you should expect to go through half
of the possibilities before getting the one you want and proceeding to the
next die.  With this method, you would spend about 150 seconds versus an
extremely long time with the other method.

Evolution works something like the second method.  It doesn't "try" all possible
combinations until it hits the right one.  Rather, it "tries" incremental
changes to already existing organisms.

I don't mean to imply that, because there is a goal of obtaining all threes
in the thought experiment, that I believe that human beings were a goal of
evolution.  Evolution doesn't have goals, unless one considers survival of the
fittest to be a goal.  Human beings evolved into their present form only
because of the circumstances of their ancestors.  If, for instance, the climate
were much colder when humans evolved, then we might all have thick fur.

Please don't think that I reject the "punctuated equilibrium" theory because
of my above arguments.  I believe that it is more likely than gradualism,
based on the evidence.  My thought experiment was only intended to show that
order can come out of random processes in a relatively short length of time
if partial results are preserved along the way.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak