The probability of evolution.
The more I look around me, the more I wonder how people can possibly believe in evolution. Is it really that hard to see that it entails believing in the occurrence of an incredible number of improbable events?
Just take, for example, the development of a cardio-vascular system or the eye. Can you even begin to imagine the individual modifications that would be required to get from nothing (or whatever is dreamed up as a precursor) to a working system? Let's say you can. Now start thinking about the probability of each step actually happening - and managing to propagate through the population. Now do it again for all the other subsystems and species. And don't forget to factor in that the fittest don't always survive!
If at the end of all that considering and calculating, you still believe that evolution is a viable theory, I have a bridge I can sell you... okay, not really :>
posted by Anonymous at
4:10 pm
7 Comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#In_creationism_and_intelligent_design
Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid that link doesn't really address the issue though. All of the eyes mentioned in the wikipedia article are fully functional, even if they have more or less (or different) functionality than the human eye. Furthermore, there's no proof (as far as I know) that one evolved from another. We can imagine relationships between things, but that doesn't mean they actually exist.
And also imagining God doesn't mean He exists.
Nor does "A seems unlikely, therefore B" constitute an argument.
If the question is who's on shakier ground, evolutionary theorists, or you in this post, the answer's ... (wait for it) ... you.
I agree that imagining a God doesn't mean He (or she or it) exists, and that "A seems unlikely, therefore B" is also faulty logic.
But I'd disagree (yes, wait for it too :>) that I'm on shakier ground. You see, both positions are conjecture. That is, we can't prove either creation or evolution because proving what happened in the past is impossible. We can do experiments and investigations that might prove that (all other things being equal) the same thing could have happened in the past, but we can't thereby prove that all other things were equal in the past, or that the same thing did happen in the past.
Regards,
Nigel
That is, we can't prove either creation or evolution because proving what happened in the past is impossible.
That's not true. We wouldn't be so advance technologically if it was true :)
The probability of each step happening is not that thin. You would be surprise of how much of those "steps" (mutation) occurs, even on our time scale. Have you every heard of bacteria's resistance to antibiotics? This is evolution: you kill the less adapted and you keep the most adapted. The genes. Or you could take the influenza virus. Each year you have a new strain because it evolves.
Those examples are on a "human" time scale with simpler living form than humans. If you multiply by the number of individuals of a single species, multiply by the number of species, on time scale of millions, even billions of years, you get HIGHLY probable event.
It is quite hard to "believe" (I put quotes because it's not something about believing, but about knowledge) something as "simple" as a bacteria (which are far from simple...) would evolve in something as complex as an eye or heart or whatever. You need to look at small changes, which are highly probable, on time scale of millions of years, which are hard to imagine.
Sorry for the long delay in replying. Too many things on my plate.
>> That is, we can't prove either creation or evolution because proving what happened in the past is impossible.
> That's not true. We wouldn't be so advance technologically if it was true :)
Sorry. I don't follow your logic here, Nicolas.
> The probability of each step happening is not that thin. You would be surprise of how much of those "steps" (mutation) occurs, even on our time scale. Have you every heard of bacteria's resistance to antibiotics? This is evolution: you kill the less adapted and you keep the most adapted. The genes. Or you could take the influenza virus. Each year you have a new strain because it evolves.
A few issues here. First, you haven't said which steps you're thinking of when you talk about the probability of them being small. Presumably some would be smaller than others, but which ones are you thinking of?
Regarding bacterial resistance to antibiotics, do we really understand what's going on? It may well be (I'll freely admit that I'm conjecturing here) that rather than the bacteria improving their resistance, they're being damaged in a way that stops the medicine working. It would be interesting to learn more.
> Those examples are on a "human" time scale with simpler living form than humans. If you multiply by the number of individuals of a single species, multiply by the number of species, on time scale of millions, even billions of years, you get HIGHLY probable event.
Sorry, but your calculations are incorrect. You need to calculate the probability of a change happening in one individual. You then need to either calculate the probability of that change occurring repeatedly in the population, or of it being promulgated in future generations. Either way, the probability will be small. Do this calculation for each mutation that is imagined. Then you get the overall probability of an entire populate mutating from one form to the other. It will, by definition (you're multiplying values less than 1) be small, not large. More time only increases the number of events that can happen - positive and negative. It doesn't inherently make something more or less likely.
> It is quite hard to "believe" (I put quotes because it's not something about believing, but about knowledge) something as "simple" as a bacteria (which are far from simple...) would evolve in something as complex as an eye or heart or whatever. You need to look at small changes, which are highly probable, on time scale of millions of years, which are hard to imagine.
But it is about believing, not knowledge. We weren't there when all of these imagined evolutionary events happened. We are interpreting what we see around us today, making assumptions about what could or couldn't have happened, and imagining steps for which we have no proof. That's faith, not knowledge.
Nigel,
You are right on... I might also point out that as far as drug resistant bacteria are concerned, it isn't random mutation that makes them resistant. Actually, some portion of the bacteria survives the onlsaught of the drug. Those parts continue to reproduce so that the next time bacteria from the same line are exposed to the same drug, a far greater number are resistant.
How could a random mutation produce resistance? If there was no resistance in the population to begin with, the drug would wipe them out without a chance to reproduce.
-Benjamin
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home