The Problem With Odds

[Mindlab Expositor]

The problem with odds is that they can be used to say more than they should. For example, Answers in Genesis says there is a 1 in 10 to the 30 chance of 100 lefty handed DNA proteins assembling on their own in a primordial mud puddle. I don't claim to know what really happened 4.5 billion years ago. This is the figure they post. (see answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life/).

From their website:

In the case of protein formation, the statement “given enough time” is not valid. When we look at the mathematical probabilities of even a small protein (100 amino acids) assembling by random chance, it is beyond anything that has ever been observed.
What is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids? (An average protein has at least 300 amino acids in it—all left-handed.) To assemble just 100 left-handed amino acids (far shorter than the average protein) would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. In order to get 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 1030 times (this is 10 x 10, 30 times). This is such an astounding improbability that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe (even according to evolutionary time frames) for this to happen.

The ability of complex structures to form by naturalistic processes is essential for the evolution model to work. However, the complexity of life appears to preclude this from happening. According to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occurring is smaller than 1 in 10-50, then the event will never occur (this is equal to 1 divided by 1050 and is a very small number).19

What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average-size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, PhD, materials science, and Charles Thaxton, PhD, chemistry,5calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is:

4.9 x 10-191

This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, PhD, astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied math and astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is:

1 x 10-40,000

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. . . . There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.20

bold emphasis mine for laughs

What the quote above does not show is that there is approximately 1 in 10 to the 2,685,000 chance of you being alive in the exact form you're in right now. (see visual.ly/what-are-odds)

Unless I missed something, I think Answers in Genesis is implicitly telling us that naturally occurring primordial soup proteins are more likely to occur than you being alive to read this post.

I bet someone who has studied mathematical odds and statistics can explain what I am seeing here.

Are any there other odds or statistics that should not be used to say more than they should?

I think words like random are another word for I don't know how it was caused[/B].

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think words like random are another word for I don't know how it was caused[/B].

No, it means without predictable outcomes.
AIG assumes that we're the goal, that humanity is the only possible outcome of creation. They also think evolution is completely random. So to them, the odds of us, the final goal of God's creation being assembled from nothing, with no direction, are directly comparable.

The math, however, is meaningless. If there's no god, but evolution works, evolution isn't completely random. Things that work are retained, while things that don't work tend to work themselves out. So the odds are good that SOMETHING would be here at this point in time.
It just didn't have to be us.

 

[bilby]

Randomness is only half of the picture. Randomness alone is unlikely to generate any particularly complex structures. But add the other half of evolution - selection - and it is easy to see how the odds are strongly in favour of complex structures, if those structures are better able to reproduce than the simpler ones.

The question of where life starts is a difficult one, not least because the definition of life is not universally agreed upon. For the purpose of discussing evolution and abiogenesis, I like to define life as 'that which can evolve'; The minimum requirement for this definition of life is accurate (but not 100% accurate) self-replication, in an environment with limited resources. So abiogenesis ends, and evolution starts, when evolution becomes the primary driver of change amongst complex molecules.

The odds of something evolving in an environment with limited resources (and all environments are limited to some degree) are very high; so discussing probability in regards to evolution is missing the point. As Keith&Co. points out, once the ball is rolling, the odds that there will be something complex around in a few billion years approaches unity - it certainly is no surprise to find complex life.

Abiogenesis is another matter; Odds probably do count there - but a simple replicator need not be as complex as an average sized modern protein; and there are about 4x10⁴¹ molecules in the Earth's oceans alone - winning the lottery with one ticket is hard, but buying four hundred thousand billion billion billion billion tickets makes it almost a certainty. Particularly if you play that many tickets every week, for a billion years or so.

 

[Mageth]

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. . . . There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, among other problems.

I mentioned TalkOrigins in the thread where you were looking for references on evolution. It's an excellent source for responses to creationists' claims...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

[Malintent]

Either life started in the primordial soup, or it didn't. That's 50/50 odds, right? Absolutely not.

What are the odds that a hydrogen atom, sitting next to an Oxygen atom, with an electric charge (like lightning) applied, would produce a water molecule? It is nearly 100%.

That is how chemistry works. The "odds" of a chemical reaction occurring, given the correct environment, is the same as the "odds" of you falling to the floor when you jump off a ladder.

Counting the number of atoms in a thing and then declaring the odds of that thing randomly assembling, is not a model of anything. The odds would need to be calculated based on the likelihood of the correct conditions being present... not on how things would work if no physical laws of the universe existed and everything was dictated by pure randomness.

I love that response about how less likely it is that I participating in this thread, than for life to have started via abiogenesis. Great response... just find something with more molecules than the thing that "can't have occurred naturally", and that proves that it could. Fight stupid with stupid (or, mirroring / argumentum absurdum).

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The problem with odds is that probability is truly understood by so few people, yet explained by so many...

aa

 

[braces_for_impact]

Yes, creationist math is not only often wrong, but intentionally misleading as well.

The odds of a straight flush in poker is 30,939 to 1. Sounds incredibly unlikely right? Yet it happens. But here's the kicker. The odds of any hand you receive in poker are the same. We give a straight flush our own significance, and this makes it seem even more unlikely. Also, I've never seen creationist math take on the bigger picture. Perhaps the chances of life are a large hurdle to overcome but, this isn't the only experiment being run. Many planets in the universe with similar placement in the goldilocks zone of it parent star, stabilizing sattelites, and large gas giants further away to clean up the remnants of a solar system forming are also running the same experiment. Most likely, this is a LOT of simultaneous experiments being run. Odds are one will overcome that hurdle.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Most likely, this is a LOT of simultaneous experiments being run. Odds are one will overcome that hurdle.

And more to the point, odds are pretty worthless to examine historical events. You can't prove something did NOT happen now matter how you calculate the odds of it happening.

I just drew five cards from my deck. Before i drew it, the odds were 30,939 to 1 that i would draw THIS hand. Right now, the odds are 1 in 1 that i did draw it.

 

[bilby]

The proportion of the world population who are professional football players is tiny; and yet every single member of the Leeds United squad are professional football players.

What an astonishing coincidence! The odds against this happening by random chance are astronomical.

Therefore there is no such thing as a professional football team.

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

The problem with odds is that probability is truly understood by so few people, yet explained by so many...

aa

Tell us what you know.

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

The proportion of the world population who are professional football players is tiny; and yet every single member of the Leeds United squad are professional football players.

What an astonishing coincidence! The odds against this happening by random chance are astronomical.

Therefore there is no such thing as a professional football team.

I guess you're not a professional football player.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The problem with odds is that probability is truly understood by so few people, yet explained by so many...

aa

Tell us what you know.

I would say you are barking up the right tree with these questions:

Are any there other odds or statistics that should not be used to say more than they should?

I think words like random are another word for I don't know how it was caused[/B].

1) No odds or statistics should ever be used to say more than they can. People are often very quick to turn observation into prediction without going through the rigor of completely understanding what it is they've observed.

2) Most folks use the word 'Random' to invoke a probability distribution that is uniform among all possible outcomes - which is an assumption that requires you to know A) all possible outcomes, and B) that every one of the outcomes is equally likely. Outside of flipping coins, rolling dice, cutting a well shuffled deck of cards, etc, it is one of the more ridiculous assumptions a scientist or mathematician can make.

So let's deal with some of this AIG mess:

From their website:

In the case of protein formation, the statement “given enough time” is not valid. When we look at the mathematical probabilities of even a small protein (100 amino acids) assembling by random chance, it is beyond anything that has ever been observed.
What is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids? (An average protein has at least 300 amino acids in it—all left-handed.) To assemble just 100 left-handed amino acids (far shorter than the average protein) would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin.

Why is the probability of assembling 100 left-handed amino acids the same as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping coins? Is hand assginment for amino acids uniformly distributed out of 2 possible outcomes? If so has this always been the case (ie were there ever conditions on this planet or anywhere else in space ever that predominatly favored one hand over the other)? I guess that assumption is left to the reader to prove.

In order to get 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 1030 times (this is 10 x 10, 30 times). This is such an astounding improbability that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe (even according to evolutionary time frames) for this to happen.

Speaking of coins, I can't really make heads or tails of this statement. No amount of flipping guarantees 100 heads in a row, but the more flips you do, the more likely you are to see 100 heads in a row. (I'm assuming here that the author is talking about 1 x 10^30). Also, why are we limiting the sample space of flips to one coin on earth flipped every second or so? Is that really how amino acids form? It might surprise the author that if we added 1,000,000 coin flippers on earth and also 1,000,000 planets (at least as old as earth) to the coin flipping experiment, we would be right in the wheelhouse of pulling off this ridiculous probability exercise. so qe not d.

The ability of complex structures to form by naturalistic processes is essential for the evolution model to work. However, the complexity of life appears to preclude this from happening. According to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occurring is smaller than 1 in 10-50, then the event will never occur (this is equal to 1 divided by 1050 and is a very small number).19

Nope, no, uh-uh, no, no, nope. Most definitely not a law of probability nor a benchmark I'm even familiar with. Things with a probability of zero happen all the time. In fact, I would say it is a law of probability that you cannot prove that any outcome is impossible by measuring it's probability. What you need is a better measuring instrument (probability is, after all, a measurement). That would be like saying there is no such thing as atoms because they are zero inches long according to my tape measure.

What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average-size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, PhD, materials science, and Charles Thaxton, PhD, chemistry,5calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is:

4.9 x 10-191

I would just like to point out that PhD's in materials science are (evidently) not immune to common statistical pitfalls. I would be interested in examining the assumption set used to arrive at this "probability".

This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, PhD, astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied math and astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is:

1 x 10-40,000

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. . . . There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.20

Translation: "I have set an arbitrary standard for impossibility and then, using only loosely defined assumptions, surpassed it! Amino Acid formation is impossible."

The unfortunate reality is that this 'proof' only demonstrates that amino acid formation is "impossible" under the assumption set promulgated by the author. A question begging exercise if ever there was one. And the author still has to bump into the unfortunate conclusion that here we sit. (Nah, couldn't be the assumption set).

Incidentally, the probabilities - and the entire argument - would be unchanged for right handed amino acids or any combination of 100 right or left amino acids in a sequence. (this is the Sharpshooter fallacy that others were referring to).

aa

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

Well done, my friend. If I'm understanding you correctly, the assumption set for the other figure in my OP doesn't put us in the wheel house either.

Tell us what you know.

I would say you are barking up the right tree with these questions:

Are any there other odds or statistics that should not be used to say more than they should?

I think words like random are another word for I don't know how it was caused[/B].

1) No odds or statistics should ever be used to say more than they can. People are often very quick to turn observation into prediction without going through the rigor of completely understanding what it is they've observed.

2) Most folks use the word 'Random' to invoke a probability distribution that is uniform among all possible outcomes - which is an assumption that requires you to know A) all possible outcomes, and B) that every one of the outcomes is equally likely. Outside of flipping coins, rolling dice, cutting a well shuffled deck of cards, etc, it is one of the more ridiculous assumptions a scientist or mathematician can make.

So let's deal with some of this AIG mess:

From their website:

In the case of protein formation, the statement “given enough time” is not valid. When we look at the mathematical probabilities of even a small protein (100 amino acids) assembling by random chance, it is beyond anything that has ever been observed.
What is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids? (An average protein has at least 300 amino acids in it—all left-handed.) To assemble just 100 left-handed amino acids (far shorter than the average protein) would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin.

Why is the probability of assembling 100 left-handed amino acids the same as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping coins? Is hand assginment for amino acids uniformly distributed out of 2 possible outcomes? If so has this always been the case (ie were there ever conditions on this planet or anywhere else in space ever that predominatly favored one hand over the other)? I guess that assumption is left to the reader to prove.

In order to get 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 1030 times (this is 10 x 10, 30 times). This is such an astounding improbability that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe (even according to evolutionary time frames) for this to happen.

Speaking of coins, I can't really make heads or tails of this statement. No amount of flipping guarantees 100 heads in a row, but the more flips you do, the more likely you are to see 100 heads in a row. (I'm assuming here that the author is talking about 1 x 10^30). Also, why are we limiting the sample space of flips to one coin on earth flipped every second or so? Is that really how amino acids form? It might surprise the author that if we added 1,000,000 coin flippers on earth and also 1,000,000 planets (at least as old as earth) to the coin flipping experiment, we would be right in the wheelhouse of pulling off this ridiculous probability exercise. so qe not d.

The ability of complex structures to form by naturalistic processes is essential for the evolution model to work. However, the complexity of life appears to preclude this from happening. According to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occurring is smaller than 1 in 10-50, then the event will never occur (this is equal to 1 divided by 1050 and is a very small number).19

Nope, no, uh-uh, no, no, nope. Most definitely not a law of probability nor a benchmark I'm even familiar with. Things with a probability of zero happen all the time. In fact, I would say it is a law of probability that you cannot prove that any outcome is impossible by measuring it's probability. What you need is a better measuring instrument (probability is, after all, a measurement). That would be like saying there is no such thing as atoms because they are zero inches long according to my tape measure.

What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average-size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, PhD, materials science, and Charles Thaxton, PhD, chemistry,5calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is:

4.9 x 10-191

I would just like to point out that PhD's in materials science are (evidently) not immune to common statistical pitfalls. I would be interested in examining the assumption set used to arrive at this "probability".

This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, PhD, astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied math and astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is:

1 x 10-40,000

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. . . . There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.20

Translation: "I have set an arbitrary standard for impossibility and then, using only loosely defined assumptions, surpassed it! Amino Acid formation is impossible."

The unfortunate reality is that this 'proof' only demonstrates that amino acid formation is "impossible" under the assumption set promulgated by the author. A question begging exercise if ever there was one. And the author still has to bump into the unfortunate conclusion that here we sit. (Nah, couldn't be the assumption set).

Incidentally, the probabilities - and the entire argument - would be unchanged for right handed amino acids or any combination of 100 right or left amino acids in a sequence. (this is the Sharpshooter fallacy that others were referring to).

aa

 

[Malintent]

I don't care what astronomical number anyone can pull out of a hat to describe the probability of life occurring on Earth, absent of natural laws of any sort (pure random assembly). My response is that there are a far greater number of atoms in the universe, all of which are 'flipping coins' for assembly options every 1 millisecond. Therefore, life is likely to emerge 1000 times every second somewhere.

 

[Starman]

And more to the point, odds are pretty worthless to examine historical events.

Really? You mean we can't make intelligent estimates as to the a priori probability of any historical event which took place?

Not the defeat of the most powerful military force at the time, the British army and navy, versus the ill-trained, almost unequipped Revolutionary Army, which shivered and starved at Valley Forge, as men with bare feet ate fried flour and salt?

You can't prove something did NOT happen now matter how you calculate the odds of it happening.

One cannot "calculate the odds of it happening" if it "did NOT happen."
Beyond that, I can prove I am not Christopher Columbus, and that I did not discover the West Indies.

I just drew five cards from my deck. Before i drew it, the odds were 30,939 to 1 that i would draw THIS hand. Right now, the odds are 1 in 1 that i did draw it.

Sleight of hand, and nothing more. The odds were slightly less than 1 that you would draw any hand. Why less than 1? Death is one distinct possibility.
Context is everything, and so is meaningfulness. There are only four best poker hands possible. Wikipedia lists the odds of drawing one of the four royal flushes as
4 chances in 2,598,960, or 1 chance in 649,740 for each of the exact five cards in each of four suits. Thus 1 in 649,740, NOT 30,939, corresponds to the odds of a certain random hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability

Five random cards are utterly meaningless, trivial.
A royal flush, however, is very meaningful and not remotely trivial. Ask any professional poker player. He knows the odds better than the average pretender of probabilities who wishes to explain away arguments simply because he finds them contrary to his dogma.

The precise sequence of hemoglobin is likewise meaningful and not trivial. The other 10 to the 680 or so possibilities for a polypeptide of that size are trivial, however, and that huge number does not even count folding possibilities, only one of which describes hemoglobin (human).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really? You mean we can't make intelligent estimates as to the a priori probability of any historical event which took place?

No, that's not what i mean.

I just drew five cards from my deck. Before i drew it, the odds were 30,939 to 1 that i would draw THIS hand. Right now, the odds are 1 in 1 that i did draw it.

Sleight of hand, and nothing more. The odds were slightly less than 1 that you would draw any hand. Why less than 1? Death is one distinct possibility.

You miss my point. I didn't die, i DID draw that hand, so the odds are 1 in 1. it's a historical fact, now, so any complaint about the odds being against what happened are pretty useless, at least in any attempt to claim it did not happen merely because it was unlikely.

 

[Starman]

Translation: "I have set an arbitrary standard for impossibility and then, using only loosely defined assumptions, surpassed it! Amino Acid formation is impossible."

The unfortunate reality is that this 'proof' only demonstrates that amino acid formation is "impossible" under the assumption set promulgated by the author. A question begging exercise if ever there was one. And the author still has to bump into the unfortunate conclusion that here we sit. (Nah, couldn't be the assumption set).

The authors calculated probabilities based on reasonable assumptions which you simply glossed over in a breathtakingly casual, arrogant, condescending, and ignorant manner. The proof of your own casual argument is shown by your own words
"protein" - not "amino acid", as you said above - "protein" 4.9 x 10 to the minus 191.

A protein is a precise, complex chain of many amino acids, not simply "amino acid."

A "cell" - not "amino acid", as you said above, a "cell" - 1 in 10 to the 40,000

You should at least make some effort to quote the sources you so arrogantly and improperly condemn for the ignorance in them you so derisively condemn.
They're not ignorant, sir. It clearly is you who is ignorant, and extremely so.

 

[Starman]

Before i drew it, the odds were 30,939 to 1 that i would draw THIS hand.

You miss my point. I didn't die, i DID draw that hand, so the odds are 1 in 1. it's a historical fact

Oops! YOUR WORDS: "Before I drew it, the odds were..."

I didn't miss your point. I used YOUR words. You might have died "Before you drew it."
Yes, an event that happened happened. That is statistically insignificant as a tautology.
Round is round.

You got the odds far off by using 30,939 to 1 which was cited as the probability of "a straight."
there are hundreds of straights possible. Hundreds. Of five individual cards, only 1.

Why is it that atheists and leftists never seem to admit that they were wrong? It's just argue, argue, argue.
Never concede one inch. Never show any consideration for the slightest point or position which differs from your dogma?

"Inconceivable!" - Vicini, the bald guy in Princess Bride

 

[Keith&Co.]

And you still miss the point. Whatever the odds were before the event, that doesn't help prove that the event never happened.
You're still concentrating on the part that's meaningless in determining that it couldn't or didn't happen.

If evolution happened, then the odds against it happening do not detract from that fact.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Translation: "I have set an arbitrary standard for impossibility and then, using only loosely defined assumptions, surpassed it! Amino Acid formation is impossible."

The unfortunate reality is that this 'proof' only demonstrates that amino acid formation is "impossible" under the assumption set promulgated by the author. A question begging exercise if ever there was one. And the author still has to bump into the unfortunate conclusion that here we sit. (Nah, couldn't be the assumption set).

The authors calculated probabilities based on reasonable assumptions which you simply glossed over in a breathtakingly casual, arrogant, condescending, and ignorant manner. The proof of your own casual argument is shown by your own words
"protein" - not "amino acid", as you said above - "protein" 4.9 x 10 to the minus 191.

Take a coin. Flip the coin, write down whether it was heads or tails. Do this 99 more times.

Do you know the chances of getting that exact result, 7.9*10^-31? Would you have been able to of predicted it?

Must never of happened then, right?