Juli Kuhl (social worker)
On Sun, 18 Feb 1996 GRMorton@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-02-18 10:18:37 EST, you write:
>
> >To my way of thinking, the biggest argument against Darwinian evolution >is
> the sheer mathematical improbability of it occurring, even given untold
> >billions of years. You don't even need to invoke Genesis to successfully
> >argue this point. Then, when you have cast doubt in the mind of the
> >Darwinian evolutionist, at that point you invoke a literal Genesis to make
> >your point about a Creator God. To counter Darwinian evolution >arguments
> with an OEC viewpoint might not have the impact that a YEC >argument might
> have, because you then have two opposing old earth >viewpoints battling with
> one another. The YEC arguments are thus more >dramatic and 'contrasty'.
> >
> >I guess the problem (or task) then becomes...how do OECs counter the
> >Darwinian evolutionary ideas just as dramatically, convincingly, and
> >forcefully...and as successfully, as have the YECs.
>
> I always get myself in trouble when I post here, but I could not let the
> probability issue pass by unchallenged. I used to believe the line that the
> random formation of a given protein was highly unlikely--that is, until I
> worked on the problem. We can not challenge Darwinian evolution based upon
> faulty logic and faulty math. Here is a post I put on another list and it
> shows exactly how one can produce by random means a sequence which can
> perform a specified task.
>
> glenn
> Post below
>
> ABSTRACT: The probability argument against the random finding of
> a given sequence is one of the main stays of the anti-
> evolutionary position. I have noted before that I view that
> argument as a weak one for a variety of reasons. In this note I
> will show that the finding of a functional sequence by a random
> search is quite likely on normal evolutionary time scales.
> Because of this, and other weaknesses in the traditional
> apologetic, Christianity needs to move to a more defendable
> apologetic.
>
>
> Duane Gish once wrote:
>
> "The highly specific biological activity of each protein is due
> to the precise way the amino acids are arranged, just as the
> information conveyed by this sentence is determined by the
> precise sequence of 190 letters found in it."~Duane Gish, "The
> Origin of Life," Proc. First Int. Conf. on Creationism,
> Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986, p. 62
>
> There is a major problem with that sentence. This is not the
> only way to state what Gish wanted to state. For instance, he
> could have written "Biological activity is due to very specific
> orderings of amino acids as this sentences meaning is due to the
> 123 letter order."
>
> This is only a hint of how much variability there is in sequence
> space in order to convey the same message. There is an amazing
> flexibility in the language to perform the same task. I once
> calculated and listed over 330,000 ways to convey the
> information, "If you pick your nose; you get warts." These vary
> from relative pigeonish phrases like "pick nose get wart" to more
> complex statements, "If you put your digits into your nares, you
> will contract a hypertrophy of the corium." There are various
> orders of this statement. It can be reversed. "To contract a
> hypertrophy of the corium, place your digits into your nares."
> But you can substitute nasal openings, nostrils, nasal passages,
> for nares. You can get more gross and talk about what you pick
> and extract. :-) All of sequences were less than 80 in length
> and I only quit calculating because my imagination played out and
> I was getting bored.
>
> So the question is, if I wish to convey a certain message, how
> likely is it that I can find a sequence to perform a given
> function? There is a way to randomly produce a useful sequence
> which is not all that improbable.
>
> Let's use a less gross example than the nose picking one above.
> Lets find a functional sequence to answer the question your wife
> asked you when you were first married. "What do you want for
> breakfast?" (and you thought I was going to say something else.
> tsk tsk.) There are lots of ways to answer this question. What
> we will do is choose a 70 unit long sequence of 20 letters,
> ruling out the use of z,q,x,k,v and j. Thus, we have in this 70
> unit long sequence 1.18 x 10^91 different possible combinations.
> Normally the anti-evolutionists say, like Gish, that the
> likelihood of finding just the correct sequence is too unlikely
> to occur. This is usually based upon the idea that one and only
> one sequence will perform the task. This is untrue as we have
> seen.
> Even finding 330,000 ways to say I want eggs, does not solve the
> problem. 330,000 ways to say I want eggs out of 1 x 10^78 is
> still too improbable for one to consider realistically.
>
> In order to solve the problem we need one other factor. What is
> the shortest sequence which performs the function? The shortest
> I can think of is simply "eggs". But this is not a full sentence
> and would be too brusque for your bride. So lets say the
> shortest sentence is "I eat eggs" without the spaces this is a 8
> letter sequence.
>
> What I noticed was that with a 2 unit long sequence, i.e., in a
> 2-d phase space, the sequence ab occurs at only one point out of
> the 26 x 26 points in a 26 character set. That is 1/676=.0014. If
> you embed this 2d space into a third (e.g. using a 3 unit long
> sequence), there are then 52 permutations with the sequence ab.
> There are 26 sequences *ab and 26 sequences ab* for a total of 52
> sequences in the phase space.[The asterisk is a wild-card]
> Thus the odds of finding a sequence with ab is 52/17576=.0029, a
> considerable improvement in the odds of finding ab. Embedding the 2d sequence
> in a 4d space requires **ab,*ab*,ab** be the sequences desired.(here * is
> wildcard standing in for any letter) .
> There are 3 x 26^2 in the 4d sequence and thus the odds are .0044
> of finding an ab. Each subsequent embedding raises the odds of
> finding a particular short sequence.
> It would appear that the equation ought to look something like:
>
> prob=(N-n+1)(L^(N-n)/L^N
>
> where N is the number of dimensions in the larger phase space, n
> is the number of dimensions in the smaller phase space and L is
> the number of characters which can be selected. This equation
> ignores those sequences which have multiple copies of the desired
> embedded sequence, but they are a small quantity by comparison
> and can be safely ignored.
>
> Thus in the search of a 70-d space for a 8-unit sequence ("I eat
> eggs"), should yield
>
> prob =(70-8+1)(20^(62))/(20^70)=2.4 x 10^-9
>
>
> This is the probability that you will randomly make a 70 unit
> long sequence which contains the string "ieateggs" somewhere in
> it. But one can object that this embedding of the wanted string
> in another one makes it unlikely to be useful. After all, the
> string
>
> "fieuoindhgeosyhdbflgdsyfgshsdfgdfosuieateggsqcrpflacyebfmcpdusmw
> gcnmle"
>
> does not seem to convey much information. But, as is often noted
> in discussions of the origin of protein or DNA sequences, once
> formed the sequence is likely to be cut randomly. So what are
> the odds that a sequence with "ieateggs" will be cut twice, at
> just the correct location? If we consider that a sequence that
> is not cut is equivalent to cutting it past the terminal
> character of the sequence, there are 71 places you can cut the
> sequence. Thus for the above sequence, randomly cut, there is a
> 1/(71*71)= 1/5041 chance of cutting it in such a fashion that the
> "iwanteggs" statement is extracted. Thus the total probability
> of finding a useful sequence in the 70 unit long sequence is 4.76
> x 10^-13.
>
> How likely are we to find this useful sequence? If we were to
> assign amino acids to the letters, and write this sequence in
> proteins, and then create a vat with 10^14 70-amino acid
> proteins, (This is an average sized vat produced in university
> laboratories today.) you would most likely find 10 of the
> "ieateggs" sequence in the first vat.
>
> This is not all. The next shortest useful sequence to answer
> your bride's question is "I want eggs" This is a nine character
> sequence The odds of finding and cutting out this sequence
> in a 70-unit long sequence is 2.40 x 10^-14. In your first
> vat of proteins there is a high probability that one "iwanteggs"
> will be found. But there is also the phrase "I like eggs"
> which is also 9 and has a probability of 2.40 x 10^-14 of being
> in the vat after each sequence is cut twice. There is also,
> "I need eggs", "I wish eggs" and "I have eggs".
>
> If we look for 10-sequence solutions, we have "I covet eggs", I
> crave eggs", "I fancy eggs", "I favor eggs" Each of these has a
> probability approximately 10^-15. You would be likely to find
> one of these in the first 10 vats.
>
> In addition to these, if we go to an 11-length solution, we have
> phrases like "I ingest eggs" "I devour eggs", "I fancy eggs", "I
> gobble eggs". These have a likelihood of 10^-16.
>
> This can go on and on. Within the 70-d space there are hundreds
> of thousands of ways of saying that you want eggs for breakfast.
>
> One question which can be addressed here is how can a short
> useable sequence become longer. Well, if you come down to
> breakfast and say brusquely to your bride, that "I eat eggs", she
> might cook them for a few days but eventually she will demand a
> politer response, like "Dear, I eat eggs". Small additions from
> one useable form to another due to selection pressure caused by
> your hunger pangs when your bride doesn't fix your breakfast, can
> eventually lead you to say, "My beautiful wife, I am most
> desirous of eating two eggs this morning" Obviously this
> sequence has a greater functionality than simply, "I eat eggs".
> But today this greater functionality is what we observe and expect to be
> produced in the first attempt.
>
> Do proteins act in the same fashion as the language above? Yes.
> Gerald Joyce is one of the leaders in the field of directed
> evolution. He noted that about 1 in a million of his sequences are capable
> of performing the function he was looking for. This is a far cry from the 1
> chance in 10^200 normally cited by antievolutionists.
> I would point you to Discover, May 1994, "Speeding
> Through Evolution,", and to Gerald E. Joyce, "Directed
> Evolution," Scientific American, Dec. 1992, pp.somewhere around
> p. 94,95 or Beaudry and Joyce, Science, 257:637-638, 1992.
>
> Sean Eddy of the Washington University School of Medicine
> recently wrote on Talk Origins,( message
> <EDDY.95Aug17084136@wol.wustl.edu>) that RNA sequence space is
> teeming with interesting functionalities. All based upon Joyce's
> work.
>
> Thus, the weaknesses in the traditional creationist probability
> argument is two fold. It assumes that one and only one sequence
> can perform a given function. And secondly, it assumes that only
> the most complex forms must be made at first. This ignores the
> potential of short sequences performing the same function."
>
> When one adds this weakness to the other weaknesses mentioned
> over the past few weeks the weakness of our apologetical approach
> becomes obvious. The problems are: 1) the amount of genetic
> variability in humans which requires an ancient humanity in order
> to fit the Biblical data. 2) The inability for young-earth
> creationists to account within their time frame for how the caves
> could be formed in which fossil man lived. 3) The fact that
> fossil man apparently built religious altars of various forms
> which is unaccounted for by those defending a recent origin of
> Adam. 4) The inability of old earth creationists to point to a
> place and a set of rocks to explain how the flood occurred and
> how it matches the Biblical account (how could Noah float for a
> year and land anywhere near mountains?). 5) Whether one accepts
> the fossils we discussed in June and July as truly transitional
> or not, is less important to the apologetical case than what
> those fossils appear like. If they have the appearance of being
> transitional forms, all our pleading that these are really NOT
> transitional forms will fall on deaf ears.
>
> The young earth creationists position Christianity in opposition
> to almost every piece of observational data science collects,
> from astronomy, biology, geology, paleontology, physics and
> anthropology. The PC and TE positions, with a recent creation of
> man, are much better, but they place christianity in opposition
> to certain biomolecular data(MHC and other allelic diversity) and
> anthropological data (the nature of fossil man) as noted above.
>
> It is very obvious that the positions we are defending
> apologetically, are not very secure.
>
> The question those interested in Christian apologetics and the
> relation between science and the early chapters of Genesis should
> ask themselves, is whether the purpose of the Christian apologist
> is to explain the observational data in a Biblical framework or
> to explain the data away. These are two very different
> approaches. But if the probability argument against evolution is
> as weak as I showed above, Christianity had best find a better
> way to handle the area of Science and the Bible.
>
> glenn
> 16075 Longvista Dr.
> Dallas, Texas 75248
>