Rate This |
|
It is telling that they used the phrase “The probability of assembling the 241 amino acids in a precise predetermined sequence by chance.” This makes the statement technically correct, however, since neither of these two conditions apply to the assemblage of amino acids, this, by their own admission, makes the equation invalid for this usage. The fact that they included these stipulations shows that they probably knew that the equations were invalid for this usage. This is very underhanded. They present the equation in a context that doesn’t apply, and hope you don't notice. Very sneaky, indeed!
This is one of anti-evolutionists’ favorite pieces of misinformation. For the math above to apply, the event would have to occur completely by chance (i.e. no cooption, no survival of the fittest, no intermediate function, etc.), events would have to happen in a linear one-after-the-other fashion, and pre-determined outcomes would have to be specified. These are the rules THEY stipulate for the equation to be valid. However, none of these are the case. Therefore, according to their own rules, using this method to calculate the probability is like using the quadratic equation to do you taxes. While it might look impressive and may fool someone who didn’t know anything about accounting and taxes, it’s simply meaningless. But it does make good propaganda.
For example:
If you had 65 dice
and needed to roll all sixes, here are some of the approaches you could take.
-
Method 1) Roll all the dice and see if you got all sixes. If not roll them all again.
The odds of rolling 65 sixes in a single roll is one chance in 3.8x1050. According to the article, this is near impossible. At best, you’re going to be rolling for a very long time. -
Method 2) Roll one die. If it is not a six, roll it again, otherwise roll the next die. Continue until you have all sixes. You can expect to complete this in about 390 tries.
-
Method 3) Roll all 65 and keep the sixes. Roll the remaining, again keeping the sixes. Continue until you have all sixes. You would achieve the 65 sixes in about 29 tries. You could do this in a matter of minutes.
-
Method 4) Roll some of the dice, keep most of the sixes. Roll some of the remaining dice, possibly including a few of the sixes. Continue until you have all sixes. In terms of time required, this approach is somewhere in between 2 and 3.
As you can see, to achieve the same result, depending on the method used, the range of probability goes from “ain’t gonna happen” to could happen in a matter of minutes. To determine what the correct probability is requires using the equation that best represents how the process really works.
Do you really understand the Math behind Fine-Tuning and Evolutionary Probability |
Anti-evolutionists would have you believe Method 1 is the only possible method, as demonstrated by the way the odds are calculated. However, evolution theory is closer to the Method 4 approach. Someone familiar with even the rudimentary basics of evolution would readily understand why this is so. Anti-evolutionists take advantage of the general population’s misunderstandings (most of which is propagated by the anti-evolutionists) and lack of knowledge (blame our education system) to claim that it is like Method 1 and therefore impossible. This is not representative of how evolution is believed to work and has been shown to occur and is therefore highly misleading to those not familiar with evolution theories and mathematical probability. Even though evolution is a lot more complex that the example given, the example demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate the math to grossly misrepresent the odds of an event occurring.
This is a straw man debate (Create a weak opponent and knock him down). No serious evolutionist believes that this is the correct way to calculate the probability and much research has been done showing why it is not. To pretend that this argument has any real merit is just plain nonsense and takes advantage of the target audience’s ignorance of the facts.
Michael Behe uses Irreducible Complexity to try to show why evolution couldn’t be like Method 4. This is a more honest approach and at least shows some integrity. He still falls back on the “God of Gaps” to claim that what we don’t yet understand must occur by supernatural forces. Maybe he felt the need for Irreducible Complexity because he saw the handwriting on the wall that this highly-utilized math fraud has a limited life span. However, I think this greatly overestimates the anti-evolutionists desire to actually learn something about what they claim not to believe, and this fraud has the potential to continue for a really long time.
This particular mathematical workup has been shown to be invalid in that it is not applicable to evolution so many times by so many different people, that for anyone to include it without at least mentioning this is either grossly ignorant of the facts or is intentionally trying to mislead. Add them to the grain of salt list. DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE (DHM) rides again!
Side Note: Evolution is not goal oriented. It does not need to roll all sixes. If rolling all fives achieves its needs, then it would be just as happy to roll all fives. This makes the odds of a complex structure occurring even better. See “13 Cards” for further explanation of how this works.
Viewer Feedback
Add your Comments
Submit a
Rebuttal
Submit an
Article on another topic
