Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fishalt" data-source="post: 94775" data-attributes="member: 228">A classic anti-evolutionist argument now goes like this: A gene can be viewed as a sequence of DNA bases, typically represented by the letters A, C, G, and T. A gene can therefore be viewed as a sequence of letters, just as the outcomes of multiple coin tosses can be viewed as a sequence of Hs and Ts. If a specific gene is, say, 100 bases long, then the probability of getting just that sequence by random chance is 1/4 multiplied by itself 100 times. This is such a small number, the argument continues, that it could not possibly have been the outcome of a naturalistic process and must instead have arisen through intelligent design. Sometimes the argument refers to proteins (which can be viewed as sequences of amino acids) instead of genes, and sometimes additional biological details are invoked that in no way affect the logic of the argument. In various forms, this argument has long been a mainstay of creationist literature. For examples, have a look at Morris and Parker (1987, 97–100), Roth (1998, 69–70), and Foster (1999).However, this argument is premised on the notion that genes and proteins evolve through a process analogous to tossing a coin multiple times. This is untrue because there is nothing analogous to natural selection when you are tossing coins. Natural selection is a non-random process, and this fundamentally affects the probability of evolving a particular gene.To see why, suppose we toss 100 coins in the hopes of obtaining 100 heads. One approach is to throw all 100 coins at once, repeatedly, until all 100 happen to land heads at the same time. Of course, this is exceedingly unlikely to occur. An alternative approach is to flip all 100 coins, leave the ones that landed heads as they are, and then toss again only those that landed tails. We continue in this manner until all 100 coins show heads, which, under this procedure, will happen before too long. The creationist argument assumes that evolution must proceed in a manner comparable to the first approach, when really it has far more in common with the second.The failure to consider the role of natural selection in evolution is really such a crass blunder that scientists rightly consider the persistence of such arguments among anti-evolutionists evidence of their fundamental lack of good faith. Modern proponents of intelligent design (ID) are usually too sophisticated to make such an error. Instead, they present a superficially more sophisticated probability-based argument. Their idea is best illustrated by example.Let us return to coin-tossing. Suppose we toss a coin 100 times, thereby producing a chaotic jumble of heads and tails. It was very unlikely that just that sequence would appear, but we do not suspect trickery. After all, something had to happen. But now suppose we obtained 100 Hs or a perfect alternation of Hs and Ts. Now we probably would suspect trickery of some kind. Such sequences are not only improbable but also match a recognizable pattern. ID proponents argue that it is the combination of improbability and matching a pattern that makes them suspect that something other than chance or purely natural processes are at work. They use the phrase “complex, specified information” to capture this idea. In this context, “complex” just means “improbable,” and “specified” means “matches a pattern.”As applied to biology, the argument goes like this: Consider a complex, biological adaptation such as the flagellum used by some bacteria to propel themselves through liquid. The flagellum is a machine constructed from numerous individual proteins working in concert. Finding this exact functional arrangement of proteins is extremely unlikely to happen by chance. Moreover, they continue, the structure of the flagellum is strongly analogous to the sort of outboard motor we might use to propel a boat. Therefore, the flagellum exhibits both complexity and specificity, and it therefore must be the product of intelligent design.The most prominent defender of this argument is ID proponent William Dembski. He has presented it in numerous books and essays, most notably in his book No Free Lunch (Dembski 2002). Dembski presents his argument with a copious amount of mathematical notation and jargon. However, while his argument contributes some superficial sophistication, it is ultimately no improvement over what we have seen.Let us address the issue of “specificity” first. There is a danger that saying that a flagellum looks like an outboard motor is comparable to saying that a fluffy, cumulus cloud looks like a dragon. We need to be able to distinguish the design-suggesting patterns from the ones we impose on nature through excessive imagination. Biologists say that natural selection produces functional structures as a matter of course. Thus, when we see a resemblance between a flagellum and a motor, are we seeing a design-suggesting pattern, or are we seeing something that is readily explained by natural selection?In simplistic examples such as coin tossing, we have extensive background knowledge to help us with this problem. We know what usually happens when coins are tossed, and that enables us to distinguish design-suggesting patterns from what normally happens. Likewise for another example ID proponents use to illustrate specificity: Mt. Rushmore. We know what mountains look like when people do not carve faces into them, and this allows us to recognize Mt. Rushmore as the product of intelligent design. This sort of background knowledge is precisely what we lack in the case of evolution. When it comes to biological adaptations, we have no base of experience for distinguishing design-suggesting patterns from the ones explicable by natural processes.The argument likewise founders on the question of complexity. According to ID proponents, establishing complexity requires carrying out a probability calculation, but we have no means for carrying out such a computation in this context. The evolutionary process is affected by so many variables that there is no hope of quantifying them for the purposes of evaluating such a probability.In summary, any anti-evolutionist argument based on probability theory can simply be dismissed out of hand. There is no way to carry out a meaningful calculation, and adding “specificity” to the mix does nothing to improve the argument.</blockquote>

Name

Verification: Does Doxxie know his real father.

Latest Threads

An Open Letter to SwordOfStZip
- Started by AN2
- Saturday at 5:01 PM
- Replies: 12
Public Chat and Announcements
athletics
- Started by céline
- Oct 8, 2025
- Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
S
The real agenda in this Presidential Election?
- Started by scolairebocht
- Oct 6, 2025
- Replies: 11
Scholairebochts Blog.
J
Varadkar "confronted by far right" while walking down street inDublin
- Started by Jay Homer Simpson
- Oct 2, 2025
- Replies: 6
Public Chat and Announcements
B
BIG FAT HOOR TO SHRINK.
- Started by BIG FAT HOOR
- Oct 1, 2025
- Replies: 62
Health

Popular Threads

Ukraine.
- Started by Declan
- Feb 21, 2022
- Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
- Started by jpc
- Nov 7, 2022
- Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
- Started by Anderson
- Feb 26, 2023
- Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
- Started by Charlene
- Sep 14, 2021
- Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
- Started by Declan
- Dec 30, 2024
- Replies: 3K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
- Started by Anderson
- Jul 29, 2022
- Replies: 2K
Climate Change