bob b, Re: 'Increasing Genetic Information'
- Thread starter eisenreich
- Start date
First, one can not make a statement as to whether an event will never occur or has never occured based on probability unless that probability is zero. The closest we can come is the likelihood of that event occuring. Yes, an event with a probability of 10^-50 is extremely remote, but it is not prohibited from occuring. Thus, to say it is impossible is wrong. To say it is extremely improbable or highly unlikely is more correct.
1. Probabilistic Resources
Statistical reasoning must be capable of eliminating chance when the probability of events gets too small. If not, chance can be invoked to explain anything. Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy—one we may call the “chance-of-the-gaps fallacy.” Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.
…
High improbability by itself, however, is not enough to preclude chance. Indeed, highly improbable events happen all the time. Flip a coin a thousand times, and you’ll
participate in a highly improbable event. Indeed, just about anything that happens is highly improbable once we factor in all the ways what did happen could have happened. Mere improbability therefore fails to rule out chance.
…
In addition, improbability needs to be conjoined with an independently given pattern. An arrow shot randomly at a large blank wall will be highly unlikely to land at any one place on the wall. Yet land it must, and so some highly improbable event will be realized. But now fix a target on that wall and shoot the arrow. If the arrow lands in the target and the target is sufficiently small, then chance is no longer a reasonable explanation of the arrow’s trajectory.
Highly improbable, independently patterned events are said to exhibit specified complexity.
…
A probability is never small in isolation but only in relation to a set of probabilistic resources that describe the number of relevant ways an event might occur or be specified. There are thus two types of probabilistic resources, replicational and specificational. To see what is at stake, consider a wall so large that an archer cannot help but hit it. Next, let us say we learn that the archer hit some target fixed to the wall. We want to know whether the archer could reasonably have been expected to hit the target by chance. To determine this we need to know any other targets at which the archer might have been aiming. Also, we need to know how many arrows were in the archer’s quiver and might have been shot at the wall. The targets on the wall constitute the archer’s specificational resources. The arrows in the quiver constitute the archer’s replicational resources.
Note that to determine the probability of hitting some target with some arrow by chance, specificational and replicational resources multiply: Suppose the probability of hitting any given target with any one arrow has probability no more than p. Suppose further there are N such targets and M arrows in the quiver. Then the probability of hitting any one of these N targets, taken collectively, with a single arrow by chance is bounded by Np, and the probability of hitting any of these N targets with at least one of the M arrows by chance is bounded by MNp. Thus to preclude chance for a probability p means precluding chance for a probability MNp once M replicational and N specificational resources have been factored in. In practice it is enough that MNp < 1/2 or p < 1/(2MN). The rationale here is that since factoring in all relevant probabilistic resources leaves us with an event of probability less than 1/2, that event is less probable than not, and consequently we should favor the opposite event, which is more probable than not and precludes it.
Probabilistic resources comprise the relevant ways an event can occur (replicational resources) and be specified (specificational resources). The important question therefore is not What is the probability of the event in question? but rather What does its probability become after all the relevant probabilistic resources have been factored in?
Probabilities can never be considered in isolation, but must always be referred to a relevant reference class of possible replications and specifications. A seemingly improbable event can become quite probable when placed within the appropriate reference class of probabilistic resources. On the other hand, it may remain improbable even after all the relevant probabilistic resources have been factored in. If it remains improbable and if the event is also specified, then it exhibits specified complexity (complexity here being used in the sense of improbability).
2. Universal Probability Bounds
In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated around 10^80 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This frequency corresponds to the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 10^25 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.
It follows that any specified event of probability less than 1 in 10^150 will remain improbable even after all conceivable probabilistic resources from the observable universe have been factored in. A probability of 1 in 10^150 is therefore a universal probability bound. A universal probability bound is impervious to all available probabilistic resources that may be brought against it.
-----
Sections taken from W. Dembski’s Chance of the Gaps.
Statistical reasoning must be capable of eliminating chance when the probability of events gets too small. If not, chance can be invoked to explain anything. Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy—one we may call the “chance-of-the-gaps fallacy.” Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.
…
High improbability by itself, however, is not enough to preclude chance. Indeed, highly improbable events happen all the time. Flip a coin a thousand times, and you’ll
participate in a highly improbable event. Indeed, just about anything that happens is highly improbable once we factor in all the ways what did happen could have happened. Mere improbability therefore fails to rule out chance.
…
In addition, improbability needs to be conjoined with an independently given pattern. An arrow shot randomly at a large blank wall will be highly unlikely to land at any one place on the wall. Yet land it must, and so some highly improbable event will be realized. But now fix a target on that wall and shoot the arrow. If the arrow lands in the target and the target is sufficiently small, then chance is no longer a reasonable explanation of the arrow’s trajectory.
Highly improbable, independently patterned events are said to exhibit specified complexity.
…
A probability is never small in isolation but only in relation to a set of probabilistic resources that describe the number of relevant ways an event might occur or be specified. There are thus two types of probabilistic resources, replicational and specificational. To see what is at stake, consider a wall so large that an archer cannot help but hit it. Next, let us say we learn that the archer hit some target fixed to the wall. We want to know whether the archer could reasonably have been expected to hit the target by chance. To determine this we need to know any other targets at which the archer might have been aiming. Also, we need to know how many arrows were in the archer’s quiver and might have been shot at the wall. The targets on the wall constitute the archer’s specificational resources. The arrows in the quiver constitute the archer’s replicational resources.
Note that to determine the probability of hitting some target with some arrow by chance, specificational and replicational resources multiply: Suppose the probability of hitting any given target with any one arrow has probability no more than p. Suppose further there are N such targets and M arrows in the quiver. Then the probability of hitting any one of these N targets, taken collectively, with a single arrow by chance is bounded by Np, and the probability of hitting any of these N targets with at least one of the M arrows by chance is bounded by MNp. Thus to preclude chance for a probability p means precluding chance for a probability MNp once M replicational and N specificational resources have been factored in. In practice it is enough that MNp < 1/2 or p < 1/(2MN). The rationale here is that since factoring in all relevant probabilistic resources leaves us with an event of probability less than 1/2, that event is less probable than not, and consequently we should favor the opposite event, which is more probable than not and precludes it.
Probabilistic resources comprise the relevant ways an event can occur (replicational resources) and be specified (specificational resources). The important question therefore is not What is the probability of the event in question? but rather What does its probability become after all the relevant probabilistic resources have been factored in?
Probabilities can never be considered in isolation, but must always be referred to a relevant reference class of possible replications and specifications. A seemingly improbable event can become quite probable when placed within the appropriate reference class of probabilistic resources. On the other hand, it may remain improbable even after all the relevant probabilistic resources have been factored in. If it remains improbable and if the event is also specified, then it exhibits specified complexity (complexity here being used in the sense of improbability).
2. Universal Probability Bounds
In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated around 10^80 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This frequency corresponds to the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 10^25 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.
It follows that any specified event of probability less than 1 in 10^150 will remain improbable even after all conceivable probabilistic resources from the observable universe have been factored in. A probability of 1 in 10^150 is therefore a universal probability bound. A universal probability bound is impervious to all available probabilistic resources that may be brought against it.
-----
Sections taken from W. Dembski’s Chance of the Gaps.
An event with a probability of less than 1 in 10^150 is still not impossible, and Dembski isn't saying it is. He is simply stating that it still remains improbable after all resources (time and matter) have been used. You may notice that I said, "Yes, an event with a probability of 10^-50 is extremely remote, but it is not prohibited from occuring. Thus, to say it is impossible is wrong. To say it is extremely improbable or highly unlikely is more correct."
I never said something can't be remotely improbable. I said no matter how extreme probability is it is not impossible unless the probability is zero.
I never said something can't be remotely improbable. I said no matter how extreme probability is it is not impossible unless the probability is zero.
Greenrage
New member
bob b said:
The question is meaningless without specifying the time period and frequencies of events involved. It's highly improbably for any of us to get a straight flush playing poker. However, a race of aliens that lived 50,000 years and played poker every day would get straight flushes all the time. It wouldn't seem odd to get a straight flush to them.
Similarly, improbably biological events, such as beneficial mutations, are rare over a short time span, but virtually certain over a long time period.
So to answer your question, it can't be answered because it's not specific enough.
Greenrage
New member
bob b said:
You have confused two concept: increased information and survivability. The two are not necessarily coextensive. There is survival value in a cave dwelling fish losing the functionality of its eyes. A lose of information with a gain in survivability. There is also survival value in electromagnetic senitivity arising in cave dwelling fish. An increase in information with a gain in survivability. Thus the the information argument is something of a canard. What's count is survivibility. And given that the earth isn't a closed system, but a system suffused with energy input, it's not surprising that information increases occur and that they sometime lead to survivability.
Not quite. Johnny and I were having this discussion on another thread. If the information media is not maintained, it will break down. It doesn't matter if it is a CD or a DNA. As long as the energy is not controlled, you can never have an increase in information. The best you can hope for is a delay in the breakdown of the media.Greenrage said:
So it doesn't matter if losing eyes helps, it doesn't matter if you think that increased electromagnetic sensitivity is a function newly created. You cannot get the information media to fail from breaking down, and that is especially true if you add energy to the system. Therefore, your eyes and your sensitivity could not have come from new function, but from function already described on the information media - which must, according to the laws of physics, be breaking down.
Greenrage
New member
Yorzhik said:
This simply isn't true. Energy input can easy sustain the organization of matter.
The prototype is a sea shore. The matter on a sea shore is highly organized. Smaller lighter sand and material is furthest from the water. Heavier matter is nearest the water. The reason is obvious. The wave action keeps the shore organized like this due to energy input (tidal forces). So long as there is material and tidal forces and water, sea shores will remain organized.
The same is true of DNA. So long as you got organisms that can take in energy and sustain reproduction, the DNA information can be passed on virtually forever.
This sounds like a 2nd law of thermodynamics argument, which is consistently misapplied by creationist.
noguru
Well-known member
Yorzhik said:
Again that is only because you do not accept any refutation in the form of a critique of your argument. You simply block your ears and say "Na Na Na, I'm not listenting." I say this based on my experience with you on this site.
If your arguments were so strong and irrefutible, then why haven't most scientists and philosophers of science recognized the strength of your arguments? Are you claiming that a tech support person for a sales office has stumbled on truths that those who spend their lives in pursuit of these subjects have not discovered? :yawn:
Perhaps you and Bob B should get together and write a book about your combined discoveries in the material sciences. :kookoo: