Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Perhaps probability
Message-ID: <220@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 15:07:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.220
Posted: Wed Aug 22 15:07:48 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Aug-84 03:08:04 EDT
References: <539@denelcor.UUCP>
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 84


>> [Paul DuBois]
>> Creationists brandishing probability arguments against evolution have
>> been told that probability cannot meaningfully be applied to the question
>> "how did what's here happen to become as it is".  If this is true, then
>> it would appear a reasonable reply to request that evolutionists refrain
>> from such arguments as well. ...But if probabilistic considerations are
>> inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous as those of
>> the creationists are alleged to be.  Right?

> [Lyle McElhaney]
> Now, wait a minute. I've not seen anyone say that probability arguments are
> inadmissable.

I quote Bill Jefferys:

	First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that
	the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin
	molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability
	theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about 
	what *may be observed in the future*.

This sounds to me like "probability is inapplicable to the past".
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.  Mr. Jefferys may wish
to respond here.

>               The point is that probability, like any tool, is subject to
> gigo - the results obtained are only as valid as the input supplied. The
> argument against the the "probability arguments against evolution" applies
> to the assumptions made, not to the statistics derived therefrom. The
> The
> assumptions of the argument are:
> 
>  - that all possible combinations of any two (atoms, amino-acids) are
>    equally probable;
>  - that there is only one possible right combination which will fulfill
>    any given protein's function;
> 
> The "fatuousness" of the argument is in the assumptions, not the statistics.
> The assumptions are demolished; the argument is invalid. Any similar argument
> not based on these assumptions is not affected.

Failure on our part to demonstrate the validity of our argument
(although I haven't conceded that) doesn't validate the 
proposition that complex organic compounds arose by non-directed
processes.  The point of my article was to indicate that no
evidence has been put forth to demonstrate such a proposition,
and that the arguments for it proceed along the lines of
speculation (as they necessarily must).  The ideas advanced
within those arguments may be based on known and accepted
scientific phenomena, but they prove nothing relative to the
validity of the proposition.  Because organic processes
occur in certain ways, given that the organic compounds exist
today, proves zero about how they got that way in the first
place.  If it's so easy to get these compounds together,
someone please submit references regarding their creation
(unfortunate word) in the laboratory from the raw materials.
And also regarding what keeps them from decomposing as fast
as they arise.

Please observe that I do not put this forth as an argument
*for creation*, but rather as a reason not to be satisifed
with the evolutionary arguments.

>> "Undoubtedly.  Probably.  Interia kept it around.  Improved its
>> efficiency.  The one that was handy."

> Yes, I guess I could be accused of looseness in my language, but that's the
> way I like to write (and read) net news. If you want turgid thesis-style
> wording and bullet-proof logic, I'll have to bow out of this one -- I have
> neither the time nor the inclination to make my wording unassailable.
> Net.origins is hard enough to read and follow without driving away the
> audience with the kind of iron-clad verbage available in the referenced
> books. I prefer to keep the wording light, and strike the points of the
> arguments, rather than belabor them.

My impression from this side is that many of those on the other
side want iron-clad verbiage.
-- 

Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist...
						Colossians 1:17