This guy reckons he has debunked Evolution

Here is his “proof” Nyar/Calli what do you think of his calc? I told him bookies odds and an opinion are not a proof.

“Probability calculations with conservative assumptions are simply a matter of easy multiplication. It quickly becomes fantastically improbable. Take the arrangement of one of the simplest proteins, which has 125 amino acids in a special sequence of 20 possible choices. The odds are 20^-125 = 4X10^-162. Since this arrangement is 82 orders of magnitude beyond the number of atoms in the universe, I think we have shown that this arrangement is impossible by spontaneous means by the second law.
Apparently you were not paying attention to that post.
The generalized form of the second law states “The direction of spontaneous change is from an arrangement of lower probability towards an arrangement of higher probability.” Random amino acid sequences (assuming you have some lying around) are highly probable, but this example of a highly specified sequence in a simple protein is fantastically improbable. Hence, such specified arrangements cannot spontenously happen over time… by law. It is like pressing on the button on a can of compressed air and expecting the air in the room to rush into the can. It can’t happen. Specified arrangements of amino acids as functional proteins also cannot happen-- and for exactly the same reason. It is against the law.”

Well I’ll write up more later, but this jumped off the page at me before I even realized the context. That is false. Not really an attack on the logic of the argument (I’ll post more in a bit), but very strange.

I shall await your reply…this is where I get utterly lost.

Do we really need to pick apart the mathematical detail of an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy, that posits the odds of a life occurring as an as yet unknown natural phenomenon, are significantly reduced if you simply use a slew of common logical fallacies to assume an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition using inexplicable magic did it?

Of course we could just turn on any news channel to see his claim is farcical nonsense.

Yes. Sadly we do Shelley. Same reason as we need you to point out the fallacies they use. It is not the debate. It is the watchers we seek to influence.


Fair enough I stand corrected, as that does make sense.

1 Like

I think Cal has pin pointed the important point in his third supplement above “…the authors directly address a favourite canard of creationists…, namely that information somehow constitutes a “non-physical” entity.” And this is after the apparent wilful misrepresentation of different conditions for the laws of thermodynamics and the confused blurring between physical evidence, statistical, and informational theories. There is a sustained nagging feeling that they are simply dragging select parts of the evidence to the feet of their gods.
Cal, I’m looking forward to your section number 4.

1 Like

as am I my friends!

When Calli writes it is as if my brain has enhanced receptors lol.

Let’s let X represent the number of atoms in the universe. No one knows the value of X. Currently, no one even knows how many digits X has. Currently the lower bound on X is somewhere around 82-83 digits. Currently there is no known upper bound. X might be 100,000,000 digits. I assure you, you can not calculate this result without setting a value for this number. The higher you set it, the more and more unusual things will happen. The author of this has set it as low as possible. Setting it to the value of the observed universe is essentially a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. An interesting result is found (life on Earth), and a bullseye is drawn around it. Then make up some numbers, and boom, we get the post that Old Man cited.

1 Like

This is known as the naive definition of probability; and should not be used without justification. What that means is they are assuming all outcomes have the same probability (they are assuming all outcomes are just as likely). They are calculating it like they are pulling cards out of a shuffled deck, or rolling a fair dice. Well in the real world, those parts have have extremely complicated electrical charges, those parts attract and repel each other in an extremely complicated dance. Do you think the author of this took the forces between those amino acids into account?

eta: Or rephrased, if you threw 2 marbles and 2 magnets into the air. Do you think the probability that the two magnets will stick together is the same as the two marbles? No, of course not. Are all amino acid combinations equally likely? No, of course not.

Remember the creationist “Dan” from the previous forums? The 50/50 guy? Yeah, this guy is just doing a slightly more sophisticated version of the same madness.

eta: another way of saying it: What is the probability that I will win 1 million lotteries in a row and become the king of Mars? Well, that will either happen or not happen, so two outcomes: there is a 50/50 it will happen! I think we all know why that is non-sense; its just harder to see when your talking about amino acids and such.

How many locations is this happening in?
How many times does this get attempted per location?

Are we talking about 1 location, 1 attempt per minute for 5 minutes, or 10^1000 locations and 100 attempts for second for 13 billion years? These details will have an enormous consequence on the final probability, yet they aren’t listed. I guessing that isn’t an accident.

If we assume the number are right up to this point (they aren’t), how would this make anything impossible? That alone would be a feat worth reading (showing how these numbers made something impossible).

1 Like

I don’t have the whole conversation; but it seems like this probability “calculation” is being limited to “protein based life”. Seems like another Texas Sharpshooter.

Last night I watched a bunch of stuff about the bloke Prof Brain Cox called “the gem encrusted guru”, Depal Chopra. (habitually had diamonds on his glasses) Actually, what I watched was this fraud being debunked by people with an IQ above ambient room temperature.

It’s appropriate here, because this conman uses the same techniques as the bloke with religion and maths. He baffles with bullshit. In Chopra’s case it’s using uncommon words and meaningless platitudes . To ‘prove’ his shit, he refers to quantum physics/ (of which he is apparently completely ignorant) and solipism

He appeared on Oprah,charmed her and his target audience; bored bourgeois housewives.

I did some stats on a business course in 1973. I kinda of understand probability at a very basic level. Apart from that, I’m mathematically illiterate.

I ‘know’ a few claims about quantum physics which I may have misunderstood: There was no ‘before’ with the big bang, observation may influence the outcome, time travel is only possible one way, and the universe could have been created from nothing (I had to learn that ‘nothing’ to
a physicist is not the same as’ nothing to a philosopher). I’ve accepted these claims because each comes from an actual physicists. I simply do not have the tools or the brains to test them.

I think it’s crucial that attempts be made to debunk frauds and fraudulent practices. I think there are times when ordinary people (including me) need to be protected from their own ignorance, by educating us if possible.

Thanks for every ones especially Nyars excellent input. The OP has lost it with me since I told him that playing with his toes was a better option than attempting creatard Youtube superstardom with bullshit “Mathematical Proofs” .

If I get a further reply I will post it here for our delectation and mirth.

Loved that captioned illustration, laughed out loud despite a crushing hangover. :grin:

Sorry old man…I stopped here. I didn’t even look at the calculations.

Accepting this will allow ANYTHING to be “calculated” into “reality”. Has nothing to do with what IS real. OR I guess in his case, “out” of reality so he can pop in a “god” (which btw) has no basis in reality because his assumption I would think, is it exists outside time/space (ohhhh, where Plank breaks down) and luckily for us all it’s “human like giving purpose to everything)…

Using his opening statement I could calculate that he doesn’t exist. (What are the chances a particular sperm meets the egg at the right time…going back generation after generation!!! I mean, if his grand-daddy had jerked off before fucking his grandma :older_woman:t2: he wouldn’t exist.)

Again - so what??? Same applies to his existence. Get him to do the math on that. Give him “a benefit of doubt” - like, he can calculate it back to Adam and Eve if he wants. Hahahaha.

Edit: here’s a fun odds calculation for him. Say his mommy, partying and stuff (hmmm, odds of having that come about - like what if she turned left instead of right at the stop-light) meets two guys. That extra beer she drank influenced her to fuck them both (what if she didn’t drink it), and assuming one of the guys, his alcohol consumption caused one of his sperm to be a little laggy- the others guy’s swimmer :swimming_man: got there first (oops - the little egg happened to fall down early)… my goodness! Just in that one night, his “probability” to exist was “fantastically improbable”.

IOW the math doesn’t invalidate the reality. Remember he’s the maths genius, you aren’t - get him to figure out his own existence.

Sadly, the anti-spam measures built into the new forum are cramping my style when presenting scientific papers. But, I’m able to post here again, so …

Welcome to Part 4.

The authors (Adami et al cited above) move on with this:

Quite a substantial mathematical background, I think everyone will agree. I’ll let everyone have fun reading the rest of the details off-post, as they are substantial, and further elaboration here will not be necessary in the light of my providing a link to the full paper.

Part 5 follows shortly.

1 Like

Welcome to Part 5.

Moving on to the Kaila and Annila paper, here’s the abstract:

Ah, this dovetails nicely with Thomas D. Schneider’s presentation of a form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics applicable to biological systems that I’ve covered in past posts. This can be read in more detail here. Note that Thomas D. Schneider is not connected with Eric D. Schneider whose paper is cited above.

Here’s how Kaila and Annila introduce their work:

I advise readers to exercise some caution before diving into this paper in full, as it involves extensive mathematics from the calculus of variations, and a good level of familiarity with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics is a pre-requisite for understanding the paper in full.

In the meantime, let’s take a look at the Schneider & Kay paper. Here’s their introduction:

Part 6 follows shortly.

1 Like