There are lots of mysteries we don't understand, but to study and
investigate them is fascinating. We need to be open-minded.
Tim
T. Timothy Chen, Ph.D.
Biometric Research Branch, EPN-739
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Office (301)-402-0640, FAX (301)-402-0560
E-mail: tchen@helix.nih.gov
On 20 Feb 1996, Steve Anonsen/GPS wrote:
> Juli wrote:
> > If you could translate your posting so it means something
> > to us non-scientists, your perspective would get quite a bit of
> > visibility thru this not-quite-convinced YECer.
>
> I'm a lay person (a software developer), so let me give you what I've taken out
> of Glenn's posting. (The rest of Juli's original post follows my message.)
>
> Glenn Morton writes:
> > 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."
>
> For me, that is the summary of Glenn's argument.
>
> One of the key arguments from probability against evolution is the probability
> of any particular part of the molecular structure of an organism arising by
> chance. Those who promote that argument look at the structure of, say, the
> human genome and calculate the probability of that particular sequence arising
> about by chance. Naturally, the probability against that sequence coming about
> by chance is astronomical -- leading one to conclude that Darwinism is false.
> This is an argument that is used both by lay people and practicing scientists
> (see for example The Creation Hypothesis, J.P. Moreland et. al., IVP). You
> could view it as a lottery: you buy one ticket and you have a one in 10 million
> chance to win. Don't hold your breath.
>
> What I take from Glenn's post is that there are some bad assumptions underlying
> that argument. It isn't a worthless argument, but it isn't as strong as it
> seems on the surface, for two reasons (which I've quoted above). I like to use
> the analogy of a lottery ticket. You buy one ticket, the odds are 10 million to
> 1 you'll win. Glenn is saying that there is more than one ticket involved here.
>
> First, the promoter of this version of the argument from probability against
> evolution assumes that only one genetic sequence can accomplish a particular
> function in a living organism. That, however, is not true and is known not to
> be true. Some genetic variations can produce birth defects, but others don't
> seem to matter (at least not in ways that we can understand). Thus different
> genetic sequences may actually function equivalently in an organism. Glenn is
> arguing that the odds drop substantially if more than one genetic sequence will
> produce the same function in an organism and that, in fact, biology has
> demonstrated that that is possible. This would be like saying that instead of
> having one ticket for the lottery, you've purchased 10,000.
>
> Secondly, the promoter of this argument performs their calculations on the most
> complex of genetic structures. If I understand correctly, Glenn is arguing that
> if you want to have a strong argument, you can't start with highly complex
> organisms because that isn't what the evolutionist is promoting. Instead,
> they're saying that simple organisms make minor adjustments to their genetic
> structure over time to adapt to environmental factors. This has been
> demonstrated by micro-evolution, which is acknowledged by all involved in the
> debate. This is like saying that someone releases digits of the winning lottery
> number and some of your 10,000 tickets adjust themselves to match the known
> digits of the winning number (but not all of them are able to do so). By the ti
> me the last digit is released, perhaps you'll have at least one ticket that was
> able to adjust itself to match the winning number.
>
> Adjusting the argument for these two assumptions, the actual probability
> wouldn't be 1 to 10,000,000. Instead it would be a function of the original
> number of tickets along with how adaptable those tickets were to further
> environmental information (the release of new numbers). In other words, the
> lottery analogy falls apart.
>
> >From my perspective, to promote with integrity this version of the argument
> from probability against Darwinism, one must deal with and respond to Glenn's
> points. At this point, I'm not sure how you could do that, though I must admit
> that while I know God created humankind, I remain an agnostic on how he did so.
>
> This does, however, suggest another line of argument against Darwinism (but not
> evolution) -- why does the ticket adjust itself to its environment? This, I
> believe, is why orthodox Christian scientists are able to with full integrity
> embrace evolutionary development and yet vigorously deny the philosophical
> naturalism underlying Darwinism.
>
> FYI, I sent this to Glenn in a private post and he said it represented his
> thoughts.
>
> Regards,
> Steve Anonsen
>
>
> Date : 02/18/96 10:42 PM
> To : GRMorton @ aol.com @ INTERNET
> cc : asa @ calvin.edu @ INTERNET (bcc: CN=Steve Anonsen/O=GPS)
> >From : julik @ haven.ios.com (Juli Kuhl) @ INTERNET
>
> Subject : Re: Probability (Was Re: Ken Ham (help))
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your lengthy posting, my dear brother in the Lord Jesus, is a good
> example of why most of us "lay people" would rather hear from the folks
> ASAers seem to discredit so freely.... and apparently with good reason.
> I have a friend in Minnesota who is 'heavy' into math.
> He spends hours and hours and hours making calculations to prove
> some little point that matters nothing to me. I love him just
> as much and respect him, even admiring him (sort of) even though his
> 'stuff' is totally useless to me. It seems important to him, you see,
> and (hopefully) he's communicating to others like himself, but... I can't
> help wondering: will it matter a hundred years from now? (My yardstick
> for priorities.) Why do we enjoy the sounds of our own voices so much...
> including myself?!
> If you could translate your posting so it means something
> to us non-scientists, your perspective would get quite a bit of
> visibility thru this not-quite-convinced YECer. I'm looking for
> quality, rational, understandable 'stuff' to prove the deficiencies
> of Darwinian theory, notwithstanding the recent article in Science News
> about transitional species (fossils) which takes away one of my favorite
> arguments.
>
> 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
> >
>