The mathematical probability of Evolution?

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Marty

I think you’re right about common ground. Do you find that most people would have a lot of common ground, if they take the time to find it? Too many seem to focus on where they think they disagree.

Yes, I do find this. And I devote a lot of effort to establishing common ground and seeking peace in the debate. Just this last week, had the fun of hanging out with Hugh Ross, James Tour, Francis Collins, and Philip Johnson. The week before, I was with John Sanford. I disagree with them all on important points, but also found substantial common ground. Even though we disagree, we are all the same family.

And @Marty I think I already like you. You should tell us more about yourself. Note to everyone else, don’t pick on guests, especially when they are not combative.

@glipsnort

It’s not clear to me what’s even being discussed here. The probability of what, exactly? We have no mathematical model that would let us calculate the probability of, say, a land mammal evolving into a marine mammal, or the probability that a hominin will evolve to be more intelligent (or less intelligent, or become extinct). No one does.

The topic shifted. Probably need a moderator to make a new thread… (@Casper_Hesp)

@gbrooks9

They talk about zero probability, and I talk about 100% probability. You can choose which style of nonsense you prefer I suppose.

@Marty

Along similar lines of “choosing which style of nonsense”, I find atheists who rail at the notion of God as nonsense, and are perfectly willing to accept the existence of the universe and the multiverse. But really, they believe in infinity, eternity, and uncreated stuff. How is that any less nonsense?

Presuming that science could disprove God (as some atheist argue) is absurd nonsense. I agree. It is begging the question. Obviously circular. An obvious error in logic.

The multiverse is different. It may or may not be ultimately real, but there is some evidence for it. The stranger notion is that this somehow obviates creation. If the multiverse exists, I’m sure God created it.

@Marty

This seems to me closely related to origins of life, since the first proteins had to arise somehow. But after origins, new stuff still arises, so the issue is the same.

This should really be kept separate. There is very strong evidence for evolution, but the case for abiogenesis is much weaker. Maybe God did it by natural process, and maybe He didn’t. Reasonable and informed people come to different conclusions here without reject large parts of mainstream science.

Evolution is different. One can still reject it if so inclined, but the evidence here is overwhelming. Of course, science does not consider God’s action (and I cannot imagine how it could), so we cannot say for sure. At the very least, however, He made us all in a way that looks like we evolved. It requires rejecting large swaths of mainstream science to reject evolution.

Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing.

And @sfmatheson, I’m not denying the real progress that has been made. That is exciting work that might someday close the loop, but we are not there yet.

@Marty

To be more specific about probability, the most meaningful for this discussion would, I think, be the probability of first arriving at some particular enzyme. Once an enzyme is in place, it’s clear that microevolution can refine it. But how do we get the first one? We would exclude those that have ancestor homologues, because proteins get repurposed often enough.

This is not the correct probability to compute. Even if the probability of arriving at a particular enzyme is impossibly small, this does not tell us anything about evolution. We know that many enzymes can all carry out the same function, but we do not know how many. Moreover, there is nothing that tells us that this specific function needed to arrive.

Instead, we need to compute the probability of evolving any new function by any new protein. It is impossible to compute this probability with any accuracy directly. Though there is convincing evidence that new functions are evolved from new proteins on a regular basis.

---

Any how @Marty tell us more about yourself.