Cornell ID advisor on Intelligent Design

... and when they're not hiding behind "Poof!", they hide behind "That's a really really big number!!!"

So's 141912000000000000. (Seconds in four and a half billion years). How many individual prokaryotes were there? There's another big number. Evolution has had lots of raw material to work with for lots of time.

All of which is an aside because we're still waiting for a facet of ID that is actually, you know, useful.

ID is not about being useful, it's about redefining ignorance to allow one to infer ... what...?

ID is scientifically vacuous but heck, it makes for a good story. Would any IDEA members want to comment on Psiaki's comments?

It's a pity Intelligent Flying wasn't "discovered" before we knew about aerodynamics.

That would have served to divert the aerospace engineer from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer.

Err..., they are wasting their time, aren't they?

One wonders what has happened to American university education when an associate professor of Cornell uses sentances such as

"If the likelihood that one cell arose by purely random coincidence is, say 10^(-100), which is essentially zero,.."

Words fail me...

So Psiaki thinks that irreducible complexity is at par with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Funny!

Just imagine if Heisenberg simply had stated that "hey, there are certain things you cannot measure with a certain precision. And if you disagree with me, please provide a precise measurement." And if a precise measurement was provided, he had responded: "but what I really mean is, you cannot measure this other thing..."
Well, he certainly would not be considered a great scientist.

Heisenberg is remembered today, because the uncertainty principle is mathematically derived from other parts of Quantum Mechanics, and can give a precise quantitative characterization of the uncertainties involved.

One wonders what has happened to American university education when an associate professor of Cornell uses sentances such as "If the likelihood that one cell arose by purely random coincidence is, say 10^(-100), which is essentially zero,.." Words fail me...

That is not to say that 1 in 10^100 is the correct probability

Then words fail you for a peculiar reason. If the chance of abiogenesis on earth really is 1 in 10^100, then it is essentially (read: might as well be) zero. That is a perfectly acceptable statement.

Then words fail you for a peculiar reason. If the chance of abiogenesis on earth really is 1 in 10^100, then it is essentially (read: might as well be) zero. That is a perfectly acceptable statement.

— heddle

Unless (for example) there are more than 10^100 planets floating around, in which case a probability of 10^-100 is very very different from a probability of 0.

Of course Irreducible Complexity is flawed in many ways such as 1) it limits itself to Darwinian pathways 2) it concludes that IC systems are not just evidence against Darwinian theory but also in favor of Intelligent Design (false duality) 3) Darwinian pathways to IC systems have been identified.

It's curious that he seems to understand the pointlessness of IC but still claims that it makes an important prediction. How is it important to predict that no process x will ever lead to result y, if by definition when process x results in y it doesn't count?

That first quote blatantly contradicts the oft repeated claim that ID does not stifle research. Psiaki is claiming that it does. He even seem to think this a good thing.

The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer.

The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer.

Granted---although to dispute my statement you need 10^100 earth-like planets. But I am sure you are not actually presenting this as a rebuttal---or are you? To put things in perspective, there are ~10^22 planets and ~10^79 protons in the observable universe.

This is not a pro (or con) ID argument. It is completely independent of ID.

Uh huh. And ID is completely independent of religion. Right, guys?

Psiaki stated that "The theory of intelligent design, or put better, the assertion that there exists irreducible complexity in certain biological mechanisms or biochemical processes, is similar. It makes few predictions. Its principle prediction is that there will never be found a naturalistic descent-with-modification (i.e., natural selection) explanation for how these irreducibly complex systems came to be."

IC makes few predictions and mainly they are arguments based on ignorance, hardly anything that qualifies as a prediction at all. And even the principle prediction is nothing but a an extension of "proving a negative" that brings nothing new to science. I ask why to waste time in such an endeavor? The chief proponents of ID wants real scientist to waste time and resources into such a fruitless pursuit but to what avail? If they are so invested in the IC argument why they should do their best to test and prove their hypothesis. Anything outside that is pure and simply not acceptable, put up or shut up.

In reality biologist (note here the work of biologists not engineers or physicists) are each day finding more demonstrations of naturalistic descent with modification precisely the kind of prediction that Behe and Co argue are not possible. Of course baseless arguments is all they can provide since they do not produce any research of any value at all. IDiots only have negative arguments that cannot be proved and logical fallacies to back up their assertions.

"The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer."

If we believed this, we'd still be sitting in caves, praying to Lightning.

Scary.

Behavioral sciences seem to have clear limits too. Why have we made huge progress on treating heart disease and minimal progress on treating mental disorders? One can't help but wonder whether we are coming up against a limit of science. Of course, the people with a vested interest in the research and clinical treatment dollars associated with mental disorders will never admit that there are fundamental limits to their science, but the rest of the public suspects that they are not to be totally trusted on this matter.

— Psiaki

Heddle -

Okay, you've made your point. 1/10^100 can be conceived of as being "very close to zero". Of course, that depends on what you compare it to. It's a lot further from zero than 1/10^1000.

So what? It's just a meaningless number some guy pulled out of his a$$. It's a double bait and switch. First switch from evolution to abiogenesis, then switch from abiogenesis to a meaningless made-up number and talk about how arbitrarily "big" or "small" you think it is. Pointless.

Surely the limits of science is our own understanding and knowledge ?

In the early 1920's it was thought that the Milky Way was the known Universe. When Hubble measured the distance of a Cepheid variable star in the Andromeda galaxy and realised that it had to be outside the Milky Way, cosmology all of a sudden took a giant leap forward. Just because we have no concept of what was before the "Big Bang" now doesn't mean we'll never have any concept of what was before the "Big Bang".

The same surely is true about biology. Something that appears incredibly complex at this moment in time, may be very simple and obvious in years to come.

If limits are placed on science then what's the point in even doing research ?

One wonders what has happened to American university education when an associate professor of Cornell uses sentances such as "If the likelihood that one cell arose by purely random coincidence is, say 10^(-100), which is essentially zero,.."

— maxOblivion

Then words fail you for a peculiar reason. If the chance of abiogenesis on earth really is 1 in 10^100, then it is essentially (read: might as well be) zero. That is a perfectly acceptable statement. That is not to say that 1 in 10^100 is the correct probability, but if it is, it is indeed essentially zero.

— heddle

One wonders what has happened to American university education when an associate professor of Cornell uses sentances such as "If the likelihood that one cell arose by purely random coincidence is, say 10^(-100), which is essentially zero,.."

— maxOblivion

1. Prof. Harrison made an unusual and seemingly effective response to one of Prof. Hunter's main critique's of evolution. Prof. Hunter's critique was that the genome provides evidence that not all life descended from the same original cell. He claimed that there is evidence of several distinctly different sets of DNA in known existing life forms that could not possibly have all descended from the same ancestor. Prof. Harrison did not dispute this assertion. Based on his failure to dispute it, I will assume that Prof. Hunter's statement is an acknowledged fact. Prof. Harrison's response was to say that this is not a problem because there could have been 25 distinct ancestors from which all life descended (I can't recall whether he said 23 or 25, but it was some number on that scale). I have to admit that this is an effective counter-argument to Prof. Hunter's critique of evolution, but it is an argument that raises many more problems for evolutionists than it solves. By using this argument to solve a biological evolution problem, he creates huge problems for pre-biological genesis of the first cell, for now one needs to independently generate not 1 cell but 25 (or was it 23?).

The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer

"Why have we made huge progress on treating heart disease and minimal progress on treating mental disorders?"

Is this really a serious question? Could the answer possibly be because the heart is basically a glorified pump whereas the brain is a vastly complex biological information processing organ with literally trillions of connections?

Hi,

This is my first post, so be kind! Just wanted to say that Anton Mates' comment (#97288):

"I guess prebiotic chemistry researchers are going to have to scrap their beloved Pure Random Coincidence Theory of Abiogenesis now. Pity; the Everything Just Kind Of Whanged Together And Hey, A Cell principle was stunning in its elegance and simplicity."

was perhaps the funniest thing I've read in a while. Of course, The Everything Just Kind Of Whanged Together And Hey, A Cell principle is probably still more scientific than ID.

"This perfectly illustrates the self-fulfilling prophesy:
There is no scientific answer, so we won't look for one.
We didn't find a scientific answer (since we didn't look for one).
The prophesy is fulfilled--- there is no scientific answer!
Where would we be with these guys in charge?"

In caves, praying to Lightning...with them in charge of the prayers.

That is their goal - control through ignorance.

Like I said...scary.

Any successful theory of abiogenesis will necessarily include proof that, if the probability is expressed as 1 in 10^N, N is much closer to 0 than to 100.

— heddle

This is not a pro (or con) ID argument. It is completely independent of ID.

— heddle

There is no scientific answer, so we won't look for one. We didn't find a scientific answer (since we didn't look for one). The prophesy is fulfilled--- there is no scientific answer! Where would we be with these guys in charge?

— Karen

Comment #97264 Posted by heddle on April 19, 2006 06:03 AM (e) My statement was purely mathematical---and quite frankly only a fool would dispute it: if the probability of abiogenesis on earth is 1 in 10^100 then it is essentially zero.

Except that, with or without a theory of abiogenesis, we already know that N is 0 for "one or more events."

Uh huh. And ID is completely independent of religion. Right, guys?

Karen wrote:
"Where would we be with these guys in charge?"

Umm...For the most part, these guys *are* in charge.

"Why have we made huge progress on treating heart disease and minimal progress on treating mental disorders?"

Unless (for example) there are more than 10^100 planets floating around, in which case a probability of 10^-100 is very very different from a probability of 0.

Even if every planet was earth-like, and the probability for abiogenesis was 1 in 10^100, it would still be essentially zero, being ~10^-78 for life to arise anywhere in the observable universe--- that's on the order drawing one special proton, at random, from anywhere in the observable universe. Again this is not pro ID---unless the probability really is ~10^-100.

Of course, heddle is dead wrong here though. There are several good reasons you don't take lazy short cuts in science like jumping from a really, really huge number to statements like the odds are "essentially zero."

That's an interesting essay at the link Heddle put up. When the IDers see it the denunciations will be fast and furious.

The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer

Until science can explain why it's easier to figure out the reason my lawnmower won't start than it was to determine why the space shuttle exploded, evolution is dead in the water. Darwinism tells us nothing about why simple things are less complex than things that are more complex than simple things are.

Does anyone have a guess as to exactly what the arguments were that Psiaki's trying to recall in the preceding section?

Until science can explain why it's easier to figure out the reason my lawnmower won't start than it was to determine why the space shuttle exploded, evolution is dead in the water. Darwinism tells us nothing about why simple things are less complex than things that are more complex than simple things are.

— ben

wamba, I don't see how your highlighting changes anything---with or without the highlighting the sentence should not cause anybody's "words to fail".

No, normdoering, the only sentence I commented on was: "If the likelihood that one cell arose by purely random coincidence is, say 10^(-100), which is essentially zero..." which is perfectly defensible.

The likelihood that one cell "arose by purely random coincidence" is approximately equal to the likelihood that pigs will come flying out of Heddle's ***. Now, what does that have to do with abiogenesis?

The ID'ers are desperate like the other creationists .They cannot fathom that nature is just a brute fact : no explanation possible.They make up a pseudo-answer for a pseudo-problem.The intelligent designer ,thus, cannot in principle function. Without begging the question,one cannot make a distinction between nature and a mind behind it.So once again,one cannot ask why of nature.[It helps to takes ones time in composing.]

Hmm... Another engineer. I forgot how we 'scored' that on T.O. They were called "??? points" or something and named after one of the T.O. regulars who tried to quantify the lopsided proportion of engineers to scientists who supported creationism.

ID is a way to say "I'm stupid, let me prove it!". ID proponents don't really have any interest in the would around them, and it's always going to be easy to say "it's tooooooo hard".
The arguement of an IDiot.

Going further we can't even claim the universe we see is all that is --- There is a "many worlds" theory that would give you several orders of magnitude more universes than electrons in our universe. If true, then in some universe all possibilities happen and only the impossible never happens.

What is with MEs and creationism? As an ME myself I'm embarrassed on a daily basis by the nutjobs with my degree spouting off incredible garbage. And why don't you ever see EEs or ChemEs or any other Engineers babbling like this? Maybe it's just that all the ME Creationism classes are at the graduate level. I'm just a lowly BSME. Maybe if I went back and got my Masters I would think you guys are all idiots and I know the real Truth.

And Heddle, 10^(-100)is NOT essentially zero unless you compare it to something much bigger. Otherwise it could be a gawdawful big number. Context is important. Even in math.

Hmm... Another engineer. I forgot how we 'scored' that on T.O. They were called "??? points" or something and named after one of the T.O. regulars who tried to quantify the lopsided proportion of engineers to scientists who supported creationism.

And Heddle, 10^(-100)is NOT essentially zero unless you compare it to something much bigger. Otherwise it could be a gawdawful big number. Context is important. Even in math.

I remember "Loki points" and "pedant points" from my time on T.O., but I don't recall what they were for.

Yes, the a postiori probability that any thing that has happened, has happened, is one. But it's the a priori probability that will, in some part, determine whether a theory of abiogenesis is credible.

— heddle

And I don't think either had anything to do with Ted Holden.

For the first time in my life, I'm going to agree with David Heddle: ID is religious apologetics, not science. I think David Heddle's link -- http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_helives_archive.html#114544736233028364 -- deserves a front-page item here on PT, and we should all wish Heddle good luck in reaching out to his fellow evangelical Christians and convincing them to start telling the truth.

As a side-bet: anyone want to wager as to how well Heddle's honesty will go over with Sal Cordova, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, et al.?

The theory of intelligent design ...makes few predictions.

there is yet no theory of abiogenesis, and all that evolution (mainstream science) claims about it is that it occurred at least once

... that an undetectable 10^500 universes is required to explain something unlikely about our own, such as abiogenesis---well that's the day (I predict) there will be a large number of defections from mainstream biology to ID.

I'm always amazed that ID proponents will argue vehemently about how evolution supporters can never answer exactly how life began, and then they'll go out and calculate the precise odds of having it happen.

At any rate, my quick layman's rebuttal...

Yes, the odds against the components of that first molecule ever getting together are pretty long. Probably not 10^100, but a pretty damn big number nonetheless.

Practically zero.

Then again, molecules are small, and there are gazillions of them in every drop of water, and lots of drops in the seas, and billions of years to get together and party.

So the opportunities available to make the right connection are essentially infinite.

And it only has to happen once.

The "law of big numbers" cuts both ways, and to work out the real odds we have to divide "almost infinity" by "practically zero".

Now, I'm just a product of the American public schools, and that exercise probably involves a lot of those squiggly Greek letters, but in those terms it sure seems a lot more likely than 10^100.

In fact, given the one example we have available for study, it would seem that the answer is "1" (or "2", if you buy the independent evolution of mitochondrial DNA).

This is a negative prediction, and many evolutionary biologists don't like its negativity.

As someone with a degree in statistics, I would like to make a few points about probability here:

1) The probability of any past event which has already occurred is 100%.

2) "Hindcasting" is a highly dangerous practice and fraught with error. I would take any estimation of past probability with a grain of salt, as it is very probable (ha!) that someone screwed up their assumptions somewhere, especially regarding something so complex as the origins of life.

3) No matter how improbable any individual probability within a complete set, one of them has to occur. For instance, if I throw 80 billion distinct playing cards into a basket and draw one, the probability of getting any particular card is a staggeringly low 1 in 80 billion, assuming a random draw. Yet there is a 100% chance that one of those cards will be drawn. Unlikely != Impossible, and sometimes, it's not even unlikely depending on perspective.

Yes, the a postiori probability that any thing that has happened, has happened, is one. But it's the a priori probability that will, in some part, determine whether a theory of abiogenesis is credible.

— heddle

Corckscrew: And you exclude the unobservable universe because...? Is that a serious question? Do you know how to estimate the number of planets in the unobservable universe?

And are you arguing that even 10^-100, were it correct, is not prohibitively small because we don't really know how big the universe is? And if a model of abiogenesis came out that had a probability of 10^-100 are you prepared to call for an end to all SETI funding?

Will it surprise you if I tell you that Psiaki is recalling incorrectly? Hunter made an unsupported assertion that evidence does not support a single origin of life. I think it was something about lack of homology in DNA replication proteins, but since he never provided precise arguments, references, or even authors I'm not sure which kernel of truth he was misinterpreting. Harrison responded that there is no theoretical requirement for a single origin of life, but that is where the evidence points. Psiaki apparently missed the second half of the statement.

— ivy privy

Mark Psiaki is an associate professor at the Sibley School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University. On his personal pages, we find his Christian Conversion Story as well as some commentary (sic) relevant to Intelligent Design.

While recovering, I began rowing a single skull. One day I was caught alone out on Princeton's Lake Carnegie in a violent lightening storm.

Just got back to this thread. Ofcourse Heddle focused on the wrong section of the quote, but we've come to expect that from the other side.

There is so much wrong with Psiaki's statement its a chore to choose where to start. In a single sentance he is able to.

1) Bait and switch.

"Evo -> Abiogenisis"

2) Invoke the whirlwind in a junkyard falicy.

"Oh its just SO RANDOM"

3) Pull numbers out of thing air.

"Yes lets pick a very big number"

4) Not define his probablities.

"10^(-100) of what? how was it derived? of all time? the probablity of a past event is 1 if it happened"

5) Use a tautology as an argument.

"sentance infact should read, "if the likelyhood that one cell arose by random coincidence is zero then ..."

And these idiots want to teach "critical thinking", oh dear.

1) The probability of any past event which has already occurred is 100%.

2) "Hindcasting" is a highly dangerous practice and fraught with error. I would take any estimation of past probability with a grain of salt, as it is very probable (ha!) that someone screwed up their assumptions somewhere, especially regarding something so complex as the origins of life.

3) No matter how improbable any individual probability within a complete set, one of them has to occur. For instance, if I throw 80 billion distinct playing cards into a basket and draw one, the probability of getting any particular card is a staggeringly low 1 in 80 billion, assuming a random draw. Yet there is a 100% chance that one of those cards will be drawn. Unlikely != Impossible, and sometimes, it's not even unlikely depending on perspective.

The statement "Darwinism is one of the best theories in the history of science," is pure rubbish. It has made no significant predictions that have been fulfilled. It makes almost no predictions that are testable.

Khan's post doesn't quite do Psiaki the injustice he deserves; he misspells "lightning" as "lightening" three separate times within the span of a single paragraph. In other words, this isn't a typo; rather, you're seeing a college professor with a blog who can't spell English words at the middle-school level of difficulty. Put another way: Psiaki thinks he deserves the Nobel Prize (for disproving 150 years' worth of biology), but he couldn't win an elementary school Spelling Bee.

I do think that Psiaki's "athiests don't get babes; I know, I used to be one, and I never ever got laid" may be one of the most unintentionally hilarious testimonies I've ever heard.

wrt #97364

Probability is the likelihood of an event happening. An event which will not happen (or could not happen) has a probability of zero. An event which is certain to happen has a probability of one. Probability NEVER has a value of less than zero or more than one.

Yes, the a postiori probability that any thing that has happened, has happened, is one. But it's the a priori probability that will, in some part, determine whether a theory of abiogenesis is credible.

— David Heddle

Moses, If you refer to me, then I encourage you to point out my error rather than make a vague allusion. If you refer to someone else, I offer the same advice.

Comment #97342 Posted by Andrew on April 19, 2006 12:22 PM (e) As a side-bet: anyone want to wager as to how well Heddle's honesty will go over with Sal Cordova, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, et al.?

Others have said it better and I've only had time to scan Psiaki's comments. But I was struck by his claim to have rowed a "skull." I've rowed sculls but never skulls, because only some dinosaur, elephant and whale skulls are large enough and those are far from water tight.The same holds for Mr. Psiaki's logic. As for the "lightening", I've witnessed fellow canoers lightening their loads for good reason, but to be nearly struck by lightening sounds like some kind of failed exotic diet. Mr. Psiaki has much to enlighten us on.

heddle (and maybe also normdoering) --- There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the observable universe is all that there is. I know of no theory of the origin of the universe ('big bang") which puts any limit on the size of the universe, other than that some of these require a finite universe.

So comparing 1 part in 10^100 to measures of universe size seem to be meaningless. What ever the probability of abiogenesis, where ever in the universe humans evolve and briefly prosper becomes the observable universe, with its approximately 10^80 elementary particles.

These number games seem completely pointless to me.

These number games seem completely pointless to me.

Probability NEVER has a value of less than zero or more than one.

Where would we be with these guys in charge?

Then what the hell good is it? What possible use can it be? To anyone?

normdoering --- If events are certain to happen, there is no reason to bother expressing the probability, = 1. The frequency with which events occur can be expressed as a rate, such as one per year.

For example, volcano eruptions are certain to occur. These occur, across the face of the earth, at an average rate of X per year. (I don't know exactly what rate volcanologists use...)

normdoering ---- If events are certain to happen, there is no reason to bother expressing the probability, = 1. The frequency with which events occur can be expressed as a rate, such as one per year. For example, volcano eruptions are certain to occur. These occur, across the face of the earth, at an average rate of X per year. (I don't know exactly what rate volcanologists use...)

Drake equation --- It's about fractions and rates, not probability. For example, fl is the fraction of 'suitable' planets on which abiogenesis occurs.

I suggest a good elementary book on probability and statistics. When I was in high school, 50 years ago, I read a fine beginner's book entitled "How to Lie with Statistics". I believe it is still in print.

Others have made this point in various ways. Any argument from probability is pointless. Unless the probability is exactly zero, then it CAN happen. Saying "that is really unlikely" does not provide an argument for anything.

Given that there is an infinite number of integers, the fact that I choose to write the number 780,593,445,391 has a probability of 1/inifinity, but it happened. Now I choose to write 10 - same probability. And it happened. (I know, the probability calculation is likely more complex, but I'm lazy.)

In fact, I'm declaring "like_duh's Law of Calculating the Probability of the Origin of Life" which states - The probability that anyone can accurately calculate the actual probability that life can spontaneously occur, within their natural, or unnatural lifespan, is exactly zero. This here by negates all arguments from probability. I sure most of you can develop an needed corollaries.

My math education isn't all that deep, but jeez...

Drake equation ---- It's about fractions and rates, not probability. For example, fl is the fraction of 'suitable' planets on which abiogenesis occurs.

'We'd be hunting witches and burning heretics.'

Not to mention counting improbabilities with crystal balls.

Yes, normdoering, one can express ones understanding of uncertain events as rates. That's what I posted for you earlier. You failed to make the connection when you posted Drake's Equation.

Please go learn something about probability and stop bothering me about it. Could you manage to use wikipedia?

Psiaki's really small probability is not that small. Think about winning the powerball lottery a hundred times in a row.

It reminded me of some thoughts I had on a book I read as a high school student, Larry Niven's "Ringworld", a popular science fiction book. One of the characters in the book was Teela Brown, a person who had been genetically bred to be lucky. Niven envisions this as an unintended result of a population growth restriction scheme by the government. Winners of a lottery were allowed to have more children. Teela's ancestors had repeatedly won this lottery. Consequently, she had been selected for "luck". The Teela Brown character was critical to the story line since many advantageous but improbable events would befall her and her companions.

While useful for the plot of Niven's book, this notion of breeding for the attribute of luck seems to me preposterous.

In our actual world, in most any generation, only a fraction of the population are parents to succeeding generations. During bad times in the past (wars, famines, plagues, tsunamis, other lethal things) this proportion may have been quite low, even during good times many individuals do not have offspring. An average rate of 50% might be a good estimate. If you consider spontaneous abortions, an even smaller fraction of conceived embryos survive to reproduce. In any case, all of our ancestors, in every generation, time after time, beat the odds. They all had offspring.

Although this must hold true for the billions of years back to the begining of life, just consider going back a bit in time, say 25,000,000 years, with perhaps 1,000,000 (a million) generations. To be born today after all this time is like winning a coin toss a million times in a row. Each of our ancestors had a chance to lose (not have offspring) but obviously none did. Not one. By this measure, our ancestors have been bred, from Niven's point of view, to be lucky. Fantastically lucky.

The nature of this luck is not the point. It could be getting the right genes, or it could be not standing on the shore when the tsunami rolls in, or even just lack of interest. In any case, another term for it is natural selection. But still, ask any new grandparent. Is it luck? Most will enthusiastically agree, that is all it is.

To put this in some sort of perspective, compare these odds with the odds of winning the Powerball lottery 100 times in a row. To win one such lottery, the probability seem to be around 1 in 100 million or 10^8. To win 100 times in a row would be 1 chance in 10^800 (1 followed by 800 zeros. This is a big number. There are only 10^80 protons in the universe.). In the example in the above paragraph, the likelihood of winning a million consecutive coin tosses is one in 2^1,000,0000. Recast as a base 10 exponent this would be about one in 10^300,000. The likelihood of your birth is 10^299,200 times more unlikely than winning the powerball 100 times in a row.

It would appear, we are all Teela Browns. This is the problem with Niven's premise; we are already so astoundingly fortunate how could we possibly be bred to be any luckier than we already are?

Psiaki, Demski and others assert various biological processes cannot naturally occur due the their calculated improbability. A number such as one chance in 10^100 is suggested as a limit (termed complex specified information) beyond which a natural event could not be expected to occur. I do not understand how this very small number was chosen but it is his number of choice. Nonetheless, the calculated probability is is nearly 10^299,850 times more unlikely than Dembski's limit . From Dembski's assertion of improbability, none of us should be here. We could not have survived naturally.

These calculations assume 50% rate for human reproductive success. If a higher percent 80% (from about 20% percent of childless women 40-45 years old in the 2000 US census) is used, then the the number for our example of 10^6 generations would be (4/5)^1,000,000 =~ 1/10^100,000. Still a vanishingly small possibility on Dembski's scale.

I'm sorry, Heddle, but that's not context. Your two examples have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and snowmobiles. You might as well discuss convective heat transfer in the context of comic book sales.

The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer.

— Psiaki

If the IC principle is true (probability 10^-100?), then it still wouldn't necessarily mean that "there is no scientific answer." If a feature is truly no sh*t IC, then in my understanding it only means that this particular thingamabob could not have evolved via natural selection.

— orrg1

As long as we're on the subject of trying to "disprove" evolution by raving about the improbability of this or that mutation happening, let me ask this question: what is the probability of Go -- oops, I mean "The Designer" -- creating the life-forms we see today? I mean, if he/she/it is an infinite and transcendent mind and all, then the probability of him/her/it implementing THIS particular design, and not any of the possibly infinite number of other ideas bouncing about in that INFINITE mind, must be on the order of one in...what...infinity? As Heddle would say, that's "essentially zero." Right?

Look, guys, you can't disprove evolution on probabilistic grounds unless you can prove that your alternative theory (which is what, exactly?) has a greater probability of happening (or of having happened). So how exactly does one calculate the probability that The Designer would design, say, the bacterial flagellum the way we see it today? Please show us how you would calculate the probability of either God or some alien starfaring race doing this or that particular thing on Earth.

Look, guys, you can't disprove evolution on probabilistic grounds unless you can prove that your alternative theory (which is what, exactly?) has a greater probability of happening (or of having happened). So how exactly does one calculate the probability that The Designer would design, say, the bacterial flagellum the way we see it today? Please show us how you would calculate the probability of either God or some alien starfaring race doing this or that particular thing on Earth.

— Raging Bee

If not all IC systems, there are at least some IC systems which cannot be resolvable in terms of blind watchmaker theories, or at the very least even if they are of blind watchmaker origin, they can never be demonstrated scientifically to be so.

Does probabilistic theology sound like a workable idea to anyone?

normdoering,

You ask "So, how do you express the probabilities of things that are certain to happen but some of which will happen more frequently?"

If you are dealing with probabilities you can't be absolutely certain that something is going to happen. You might, however, expect something to happen several times in your sample space. A common example that is close to what is being looked at here is the number of chocolate chips in a cookie. You would be very surprised not to find any, but it is possible. The number follows a Poisson distribution (named after a mathematician, nothing to do with French fish) which I'd expect to see described in any basic statistics text.

'How to Lie With Statistics' is indeed a good book for anyone who wants to get their feet wet in this area. (Mark Twain claimed the British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, said to him 'There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics')

Mark Psiaki wrote: The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer.

You might, however, expect something to happen several times in your sample space. A common example that is close to what is being looked at here is the number of chocolate chips in a cookie. You would be very surprised not to find any, but it is possible. The number follows a Poisson distribution (named after a mathematician, nothing to do with French fish) which I'd expect to see described in any basic statistics text.

Comment #97283 Posted by Dunesong on April 19, 2006 08:12 AM (e) "Mark Psiaki wrote: The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer." Seems we have seen this line of thinking at least once before in history. St. Ambrose declared that "the precepts of medicine are contrary to celestial science, watching, and prayer," and we find this statement reiterated from time to time throughout the Middle Ages. Especially prejudicial to a true development of medical science among the first Christians was their attribution of disease to diabolic influence. Origen said: "It is demons which produce famine, unfruitfulness, corruptions of the air, pestilences; they hover concealed in clouds in the lower atmosphere, and are attracted by the blood and incense which the heathen offer to them as gods." St. Augustine said: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants." Tertullian insisted that a malevolent angel is in constant attendance upon every person. Gregory of Nazianzus declared that bodily pains are provoked by demons, and that medicines are useless, but that they are often cured by the laying on of consecrated hands. St. Nilus and St. Gregory of Tours, echoing St. Ambrose, gave examples to show the sinfulness of resorting to medicine instead of trusting to the intercession of saints. St. Bernard, in a letter to certain monks, warned them that to seek relief from disease in medicine was in harmony neither with their religion nor with the honor and purity of their order. This view even found its way into the canon law, which declared the precepts of medicine are contrary to Divine knowledge. As a rule, the leaders of the Church discouraged the theory that diseases are due to natural causes, and most of them deprecated a resort to surgeons and physicians rather than to supernatural means. Will we ever learn?

As an aside, I applaud the upholding of academic and intellectual standards on this board. I'm sure I speak for more than just myself.

There's probably like three or four of us that appreciate it.

I remember "Loki points" and "pedant points" from my time on T.O., but I don't recall what they were for.

— Bill Gascoyne

"Pedant points" were awarded for excruciating pedantry above and beyond the call of duty.

Heh. I bet I'd score a lot of pedant points.

ID is not about being useful, it's about redefining ignorance

I first read this as

ID is not about being useful, it's about redeeming ignorance

My statement was purely mathematical---and quite frankly only a fool would dispute it: if the probability of abiogenesis on earth is 1 in 10^100 then it is essentially zero.

Hurling epithets like "fools" upon those who disagree with you quite often is a sign of a doubtful wisdom of the author of such epithets himself.