Re: [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drunk WAS Romans 1:20

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out! Bridge players tend to think of the
set of cards they received and not the order in which they gave.

I believe my figure of 5.365x10^28 is correct. In Richard Dawkins's "The
Blind Watchmaker", he gives the chance of each player receiving a complete
suit of cards at bridge as 2.235x10^27, which is also correct, being
5.363x10^28/ (4!), as there are 4! ways the 4 suits can be distributed among
the players.

Indicentally, Dawkins then goes on to make a silly mathematical blunder, by
imagining a creature that lived a million centuries, and that they would not
be surprised to receive such a deal during their extremely long lifetime.
Dawkins evidently didn't check the maths, because if such a creature played
100 hands a day for a million centures, then the chance of getting such a
deal is still only 1 in 6x10^14, or about the same as winning a lottery
jackpot twice in succession.

But aside from the calculations of Bridge hand probabilities, the main point
I'm making still stands. It does not work at all as a rebuttal of ID "low
probability" arguments to point out that events like any bridge deal have
low probability. I think George's example of micro- and macro- states
illustrates this nicely.

In a game of Bridge, for sure every set of hands you get has this
astronomically low probability. But suppose you played a hand, where you
made a pretty humdrum contract, say 1 Spade. You wouldn't consider that
anything worth writing home about. But if you bid for and made a Grand
Slam, then you might be more enthusiastic - tell your friend the next day
that you were lucky enough to get a Grand Slam. This is because the
macro-state of "Grand slam hand" is much less probable than a "1 Spade
hand". And if you had a deal with all four players getting the same suit,
for sure you'd think someone had messed with the pack.

The ID arguments seem to be based around the improbability of the
macro-state that leads to DNA sequences that give rise to function. What
they are saying is that nature appears to have been dealt a massive set of
Grand Slams.

There is nothing wrong with the improbability argument - what is wrong is
invoking an Intelligent Designer to explain it away, when scientific method
indicates that we must search for mechanisms that would make the improbable
become probable.

But what I get up in arms about is when someone on the list just cites that
improbable events happen all the time. Dembski or anyone else in the ID
crowd would rebut that argument straight away and make you look foolish.

In fact, Dawkins himself rebuts that argument very well in "The Blind
Watchmaker", in the chapter entitled "Explaining the very improbable":

He writes:

*The combination lock on my bicycle has 4096 different positions. Every one
of these is equally improbable in the sense that if you spin the wheels at
random, every one of the 4096 positions is equally unlikely to turn up. I
can spin the wheels at random, look at whatever number is displayed and
exclaim with hindsight: "How amazing. The odds against that number appearing
are 4,096:1. A minor miracle!" That is equivalent to regarding the
particular arrangement of rocks in a mountain, or of bits of metal in a
scrap-heap, as "complex". But one of those 4096 wheel positions really is
interestingly unique: the combination 1207 is the only one that opens the
lock. The uniqueness of 1207 has nothing to do with hindsight: it is
specified in advance by the manufacturer. If you spun the wheels at random
and happened to hit 1207 the first time, you would be able to steal the
bike, and it would seem a minor miracle.*

So now you know how to steal Dawkins's bike ;-)

Dawkins's point about the number being specified in advance by the
manufacturer is exactly the same point as I was making in an earlier post
about drawing the target round the point where the arrow landed, and saying
(with hindsight) - what are the odds it landed just there? But draw the
target on the wall before the dart is thrown, and then if it hits you have
something interesting.

So can we try and avoid this habit we have on the list by airily dismissing
probability arguments by saying that low-probability events happen all the
time? It's a completely vacuous argument, and Dembski and Dawkins alike
would agree with me.

Iain

On Nov 24, 2007 11:46 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> Iaian,
> I get your point that a hand is the same if the ace precedes the deuce as
> it is dealt, or the deuce precedes the ace, and where they come in the
> sequence of 13 of the hand. I should have said that there are 52! ways that
> a deck can produce a sequence as they are dealt. This takes out the fact
> that each player rearranges the cards, or whatever else happens to rearrange
> matters.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:15:54 +0000 "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> David,
>
> I'll concede on the meiosis point, ok the possibilities are much higher as
> you suggest.
>
> However, the point about the cards stands. It's not the order among
> players that is the point - it is the number of ways the exact same hand
> could be dealt to a single player that you failed to account for. The number
> you gave is 52! ( factorial 52). If you had said that if you deal out the
> cards of a pack one after the other and observed the sequence, then your
> figure would indeed be correct. However, you talked about four bridge
> hands. The 13 cards dealt to, say the first player would be in positions
> 1,5,9,13,... in the pack. But those thirteen in those positions could be in
> any permutation and the player would get exactly the same hand. Hence for
> one player, there are 13! ways to get the same hand. For all four you get
> (13!)^4 and they are all the same set of hands. That's about 10^39 ways.
>
>
> My point that it was a silly straw-man argument about low probability
> still stands. I do wish people like you and Dick would stop making this
> argument. While I agree that low probability doesn't prove God, it pays not
> to make foolish arguments to back this up.
>
> Iain
>
> On 11/23/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > Iain,
> > I think you've made two errors. First, you changed my approach to
> > allowing any order of hands. Your approach implied that the four hands of a
> > single suite is the same whether cdhs or shdc, or any of the other orders
> > among players. I assumed that the order among players counted. Second, you
> > ignored the fact that chromosomes are not simply transferred as wholes but
> > reassort the genes during meiosis. Unfortunately, I do not remember seeing a
> > figure of the much larger possible number of different genomes thereby
> > allowed. Then there's the possibility of miscopying. There are probably
> > other factors that geneticists can add. Happy computing.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:03:46 +0000 "Iain Strachan" <
> > igd.strachan@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > Why oh why do certain members of this list keep on making the same
> > fallacious straw-man argument over and over again despite my many attempts
> > to explain it? It seems to me that any mention of the word "probability" on
> > this list results in yet another excuse to bash ID. I believe the correct
> > response to ID is to point out that events that seem unlikely may well turn
> > out to be highly likely once we've understood the processes involved.
> >
> > But this silly "low probability events happen all the time argument" is
> > completely vacuous. Sure, if four players sit down at a bridge table and
> > deal the cards, then the chance of them getting that set of four hands is
> > one in 5.36x10^28 (The impressive figure given by D.F. Siemens in all
> > its 67 digit glory in an earlier post turned out to be too big by a whopping
> > 39 orders of magnitude, because he failed to take into account that the same
> > bridge hands arise independent of the order in which the 13 cards in each
> > hand are dealt). Nonetheless the 5.36e28 number is pretty impressive,
> > but it doesn't surprise us because any set of hands has the same chance.
> > But what if you shuffled the deck and dealt out the cards again and got the
> > same set of four hands? Then you would be surprised, because it conforms to
> > a specified target (it matched the previous hand).
> >
> > Likewise consider the case when two parents have a child by the usual
> > means. Each sperm has 23 chromosomes, each one chosen at random from each
> > chromosome pair. The same goes for each egg cell. Hence when I was born, I
> > was one of 2^46 possible individuals that could have been conceived.
> > Therefore God? as Dick would say. Of course that's a silly statement, but
> > the point is that no one in the ID camp would make that claim. Dick's
> > argument is just a straw man. But suppose my parents had a second child
> > after me by the usual means and it turned out to be an identical twin
> > genetically? At this point the 1 in 7x10^13 chance is significant because
> > it conforms to a target (ie it's the same as me).
> >
> > Honestly, until you start to grasp this elementary point your arguments
> > look every bit as foolish as some of the stuff coming out of RATE. Are you
> > going to get it this time?
> >
> > Iain
> >
> > On Nov 22, 2007 11:34 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's simply smoke and mirrors, John. All the particles that composite
> > > you and me emanated ultimately from the Big Bang. The sheer likelihood that
> > > the specific particles that ended up being you and the specific particles
> > > that would wind up being me is so low that it is nearly impossible that you
> > > and I exist and are having this conversation. Therefore, God? Where is the
> > > leap from likelihood of events to the conclusion that God has to do it all?
> > > Please send this on to your forensic specialist. Maybe he has some evidence
> > > we don't know about.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dick Fischer
> > >
> > > Dick Fischer , Genesis Proclaimed Association
> > >
> > > Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> > >
> > > www.genesisproclaimed.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> > > *On Behalf Of *John Walley
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:45 AM
> > > *To:* 'Randy Isaac'; asa@calvin.edu
> > > *Subject:* [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drunk WAS Romans 1:20
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The absence of being "fully" random is not the sign of divine
> > > guidance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have this one last niggling ID doubt. I have trouble accepting the
> > > above. This is where the ID forensic argument comes in and I have to admit
> > > it is somewhat convincing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For instance, in our RTB Chapter in Atlanta, one of our scientists is
> > > a Forensic Toxicologist that works for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
> > > He analyzes tissue samples for the presence of certain drugs and testifies
> > > as an expert witness for the state in court cases. His work involves mostly
> > > DUI, cocaine and methamphetamine, but occasionally he gets the bizarre and
> > > recently got some local black widow type woman that had a penchant for
> > > poisoning her husbands and he had to find the trace evidence of whatever it
> > > was that she used in order for the state to prosecute her. Since a couple of
> > > her previous husbands had died as well now they suspect she poisoned them
> > > too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the real CSI stuff. He took me down to the GBI lab one time
> > > and gave me a tour of all the departments and I met all the people and it
> > > was really fascinating. In addition to his toxicology lab they have a
> > > ballistics dept where they analyze all the different types of guns and
> > > bullets and a document and forgery dept that analyzes all the different
> > > kinds of document fraud several other depts and a DNA lab. In fact I met the
> > > two girls that run the DNA lab and their work was recently in the news that
> > > you may have seen since the GBI just did a paternity test on Atlanta
> > > megachurch pastor Earl Paulk and determined that his 34 year old nephew who
> > > had replaced him as pastor was really his son through an illicit affair with
> > > his brother's wife. Talk about bizarre.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > They also have a synthetic fiber analysis dept and I met the guy that
> > > was one of the ones that actually analyzed the carpet fibers in the famed
> > > Wayne Williams serial murder case in Atlanta back in the 70's. The guy I met
> > > was retiring that week and he had come on as an intern almost 30 years ago
> > > when the GBI was conducting that investigation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway my friend is a strong ID advocate and he uses his knowledge and
> > > experience of forensics in his presentation on ID and last I heard he was
> > > even writing a book about it. One example he uses is the Wayne Williams case
> > > mentioned above. In fact Wayne Williams was the first capital murder case
> > > conviction ever won on the basis of forensic evidence. They basically
> > > identified carpet fibers found on several of the bodies to the carpet in
> > > Wayne Williams' house and car and it turns out the particular carpet found
> > > in his home was a certain type from a certain small manufacturer of a
> > > certain odd color that was made in a certain small lot size and only sold in
> > > the Atlanta area be a few retailers for a certain small period of time. The
> > > prosecution's case was basically massive circumstantial evidence and came
> > > down to what are the chances that all these victims would have that carpet
> > > fiber on them if they hadn't all been in Wayne Williams house before they
> > > were murdered?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is far from being an airtight case but they won the conviction.
> > > It has been contested though from the beginning because Atlanta was sharply
> > > polarized along racial lines at the time (Wayne Williams is African
> > > American) and his defense attorney at the time (who happened to be my scout
> > > master) released a famous quote that "Wayne Williams was convicted on the
> > > law of averages instead of the law of the land". And still today there are
> > > efforts underway to get his conviction overturned and prominent local
> > > politicians continually call for that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My friends point in his presentation is that here is an example of how
> > > the govt uses science and probability arguments to convict a man of a
> > > capital murder charge for which he could have been executed, so it is
> > > therefore disingenuous for Dawkins and others in academia to deny design in
> > > the universe in the face of the same massive amounts of circumstantial
> > > evidence. Granted neither case is totally airtight and they both come down
> > > to whether or not we can rationally infer a cause beyond a reasonable doubt
> > > but we seem to have different criteria in play here. It seems like Dawkins
> > > gets away with what Wayne Williams couldn't.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To me this has always seemed like a very reasonable argument. So
> > > Dawkins want to make the metaphysical claim that evolution has no distant
> > > targets so therefore he gets to throw out all the complexity and probability
> > > evidence against him. How is this different than Wayne Williams attempting
> > > to come up with some claim to get all the carpet evidence against him thrown
> > > out that we would never buy? Why do we seem to allow this theoretical
> > > scientific ideal in academia but in the real world of the courts where
> > > people's lives are on the line, we don't?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu ]
> > > *On Behalf Of *Randy Isaac
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:46 PM
> > > *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> > > *Subject:* Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Though the picture of a staggering drunk in a hallway isn't my
> > > favorite, it does have somewhat of a crude picture of randomness with
> > > boundary conditions. In a sense, we see that kind of bounded randomness at
> > > every level of nature. At the microscopic level, it's definitely randomness
> > > bounded by the distribution of the wavefunction. A little higher and it is
> > > Brownian motion under the influence. Then random molecular collisions and
> > > pressure. At the high end of the length scale it is galaxies colliding, or
> > > not, and black holes forming, etc. And right in the middle of it all is the
> > > development of living cells, a random process at the core with some kind of
> > > bounded--or preferential--direction.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that Simon Conway Morris has been talking about the tendency for
> > > convergence in evolution though no one knows what drives it. I think we need
> > > to be careful to distinguish between bounds on randomness, environmental
> > > factors that preferentially induce certain outcomes, selection that happens
> > > at the molecular level instead of the organism level, and the divine hand of
> > > the creator. The extent to which Dawkins doesn't believe evolution is fully
> > > random, he does not refer to the last option. We should not be induced to
> > > find divine guidance under the guise of bounded or constrained randomness.
> > > The absence of being "fully" random is not the sign of divine guidance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A key point of "randomness" that Gould was famous for pointing out was
> > > the observation that if you run the tape again, you wouldn't get human
> > > beings with the specific genome that we currently have. You might get a
> > > sentient species but with quite a different set. Morris thinks maybe you
> > > would get the same. We really don't know. Rich's point, I think, is that God
> > > can carry out his will through whatever process he chooses, be it "purely"
> > > random or determistic or "miraculous" or whatever label we can think of. At
> > > the moment it looks like he chose a process that is an intriguing mixture of
> > > somewhat random mutations with natural selection. How this led to a
> > > 'predestined' group of human beings is a mystery indeed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > *From:* John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > *To:* 'Rich Blinne' <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > *Cc:* 'asa' <asa@calvin.edu>
> > >
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:00 AM
> > >
> > > *Subject:* RE: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >BTW, no one including Richard Dawkins believes that evolution is
> > > fully random.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, now it is getting interesting. Another Eureka moment for me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If Dawkins doesn't believe that evolution is fully random then does
> > > that mean he concedes some kind of guiding process or law embedded in life?
> > > Remember we discussed on this list Gould's analogy of a staggering drunk in
> > > a hallway making forward progress but by the hardest? Would Dawkins accept
> > > this thought as well?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If so, then the question turns on the existence of the analog of the
> > > hallway in nature that constrains life to make forward progress. What would
> > > that be? Maybe if that is ever understood then it would not be as easy for
> > > Dawkins to consider it as being self-existent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To me this "hallway" is some divinely embedded algorithm in the
> > > primordial epigenome that guided it ultimately to where we are today. I
> > > guess that is subjective and the same philosophical impasse we have with
> > > Dawkins on the source of evolution today. But if you tell me he at least
> > > acknowledges its possible existence that is news to me but I am glad to hear
> > > that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have long thought that the best way to defend the faith was by
> > > falling back to line of defense of an embedded algorithm because it seems
> > > most consistent with what we see in cosmological ID and less likely to be
> > > disproven like the bacterial flagellum and junk DNA arguments.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But now we are back full circle to the thorny question that started
> > > this. If evolution was guided by a divine embedded algorithm then you can
> > > almost understand ID's assertion that it was not random. Maybe we could
> > > bridge this gap between ID and TE if they instead argued it was not
> > > self-existent instead of not random? They like me have a hard time
> > > distinguishing the difference in these terms. And this embedded algorithm is
> > > what I mean by ID in biology.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If ID, TE and Dawkins all agree on Gould's hallway analogy then I
> > > don't see what all the fuss is about other than language and
> > > miscommunication. Dawkins will look at it and conclude self-existence and we
> > > will look at it and conclude God but if the impasse is purely philosophical
> > > then all the science gets factored out and this becomes real simple.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------
> > After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
> >
> > - Italian Proverb
> > -----------
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
>
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.