Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Small Thought About Some Big Numbers: A Reply
A reply to the always thoughtful Henry Racette’s recent post.
I used to be impressed with the Carl Saganesque notion that billions and billions (insert “stars,” “years,” “galaxies,” whatever) means that anything can come into being and that theories of simple abiotic origins of life are probably right. I don’t (can’t) believe that anymore. Rolling a pair of dice a few billion times does not alter the probability of rolling a 13.
Around 70 years ago, the Miller-Urey experiment generated amino acids from an electric charge in a container of water, hydrogen ammonia, and methane. From this result, we were taught in our basic biology textbooks that science was thus already on the verge of recreating the accident that created life on earth. (In that same era, we were also urged to expect the replacement of the creaky markets and democratic institutions with central planning done by experts because … science.)
A coherent, confident worldview came into being in which even that which science could not explain would be explained in short order, so we should act as if it already did.
In the seven decades since those amino acids appeared in a flask, nobody has abiotically created even a single protein, much less a system that replicates proteins. While the science of finding abiotic origins has stalled, our understanding of living structures has become vastly more complex and makes the lightning strike in the primordial ooze model even less satisfying.
The orthodox model of natural selection plus random mutation is becoming almost tiresome because of its limitations. A marvelous presentation of the disarray of biological science and the challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy can be found in this informative, must-read article: Do we need a new theory of evolution?
It is not that natural selection does not work. The problem is that it is overrated as an explanatory hypothesis if we ask, “Who will survive?” Answer: “The Fittest!” And if we ask, “How can we identify The Fittest?” Answer: “They are the ones who survive.” Thanks a pantload, Nostradamus.
And I have never been comfortable with point mutation as the author of speciation. I enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould’s explorations (such as Goldberg’s notion of a “hopeful monster”) of the topic of traits that were unlikely to be aided by natural selection if gradually presented to the court of natural selection (feathers, for example). Therefore larger, more complete leaps are logically necessary, leaps unlikely to be the result of random point mutations. The fact that the fossil record seems to include long periods of stable systems followed by rather sudden change is generally not consonant with a gradualist paradigm. How did those entirely new forms emerge? The fact that they did not die off does not explain how they came to be here in the first place.
Not to sound like Ian Malcolm, but more than just “life always finding a way.” I will speculate that many living things have a built-in capacity for giving rise to novel forms (e.g., the Senegal bichir) while others appear to be end-points with no further destiny. Environmental challenges call forth that which was always potentially there (I lost both Aristotle and Darwin on that one, but I am undeterred…) and such changes are coordinated across interrelated adaptable species. Maybe too much focus on species instead of ecosystems is a conceptual limitation, maybe influences of change are mutual.
None of this requires a theological explanation (though a sense of wonder is never a bad thing spiritually or intellectually) but it does require an admission that our understanding of life’s nature and origins is nowhere as complete as some would have us believe and perhaps less compelling than it once was. And that saying “billions and billions” grounds or even is an explanation for the nature and origin of life is somehow so very 1970s.
Published in General
That made me smile.
And I have a moment, a story I want to tell someday though I’m not sure what to make of it. It was a moment in a Vietnamese orphanage, when I first looked at my two youngest sons — orphaned brothers recently living on the streets. They were unlike every other child in the place. An email I sent my wife (still in the US) that evening mentioned my distinct impression of them being illuminated from within.
I’ve thought about it a lot. I was exhausted the week I was there, never quite adjusted to the 12 hour time difference, suffering some Asian respiratory bug, not as clear headed as I’d like. I don’t know.
There are a lot of comments and maybe someone else has already made this point, but at the end of the day aren’t we left with either (a) the mystery of why there’s anything, including the natural laws that seem to govern the natural world or (b) the mystery of some self-existent, hugely powerful and intelligent being who created the natural universe we live in?
I don’t see how anyone can prove either of these. Being a Christian, I have opted for (b), but I don’t claim to understand the mystery.
Amen!
Susan, wish I could help you with a book title, but I can’t.
I do think you might enjoy the Joe Rogan interviews of Graham Hancock as well as those with Randall Carlson. They are lengthy but taking them 1/2 hr at a time can work. :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ&t=8417s
2) Hancock, Carlson and Rogan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5LCLljJho
The suggestion that anyone could know how long it would take to evolve, if we evolved, is ridiculous. It is the height of hubris. And if you want to believe in magic, nothing will change your mind and I don’t aim to, but it is magic, nonetheless, and that is precisely what magic is: Something that cannot be explained by natural, observable phenomena. Unless you’re trying to say that faith is not needed, then it is by definition magic.
Refreshing honesty. I respect your analysis.
Still the same kind, gracious Skyler we’ve come to know and love.
So, you don’t think a god can do magic or is magic? Where’s your faith?
Wrong. Your assertion is at best ignorant. Look at the math. Look at all the changes in everything that have to occur RANDOMLY for life to form and evolve as we know. Go down to the very very very small. Smaller than cells, smaller than atoms. An awful lot of things had to happen “just so” in order to create the conditions for life. Another awful lot of things had to happen “just so” for the life we see in abundance to evolve to it’s present state. And these things had to happen in a certain order to work. Other things had to happen contemporaneously to provide the environment to work.
Could all of that happened by random chance? Maybe, but the probabilities are so infinitesimally small as to be less than statistical noise. But even then the math doesn’t work to have all those changes happen randomly in the time available with what we know about the age of the universe. That’s just the math, what about all the missing evidence to support random evolution doing it all?
I realize that people don’t like having their core belief systems questioned, and Evolution is a part of a “secular” religion, but that doesn’t disprove the questions. It’s only from a limited understanding of nature, biology, cosmology, etc. that one can unquestionably hold on to the belief that random chance did it all.
Again, the evidence suggests that evolution does happen within certain limits and parameters. Outside of those it kills. A negative example is cancer. Cancer is an evolution of the cell. But it’s one that kills the host. On the other hand, there are interesting studies on the evidence that the useful parts of the DNA of various parasites have become incorporated into human DNA for positive purposes (for us).
However, there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence or experiments that can support the claim that evolution and random chance did it all. So that leaves us where? Some kind of design.
Just because something can only happen by chance/randomly once in 5 billion years doesn’t mean it’s going to take 5 billions years for it to happen – it could happen on the first day.
Not at all on the same scale, but I know a guy who’s gotten Royal Flushes [approximate odds 1:40,000] in Video Poker twice in the space of 20 minutes.
Not even in the same ball park.
Of course, any kind of computerized “Randomness” isn’t truly random.
Again, I think this look-at-everything-all-at-once approach exaggerates the improbability of things.
Take that critical jump from non-living to living. Where does it occur? What exists immediately before and immediately after? What separates the two states, in terms of chemistry, energy, structure?
Start with that one specific moment and try to answer the question.
And if we can’t answer the question, then we are not in a position to say that whatever transpired to make that leap could not have occurred through purely naturalistic means.
doesn’t change the point though.
You don’t have to wait five billion years for something that has a “1 occurance in 5 billion years” chance of happening. You might have to wait 12 billion years.
Or you might have to wait ten minutes.
Similar to why I created this meme fairly recently:
Okay. What’s the math?
There is no “missing evidence”. You all lost that unwise bet a hundred years ago with Australopithecus. Unless by “it all” you mean making stars and so forth.
Could be truly random, but probably isn’t. I doubt they’re using something like this: Hot Bits
Statistics are voodoo math.
You missed my point entirely. I never said evolution was true. I never said I knew anything about how existence came about. I don’t. Neither do you. Lots of people have ideas, no one knows for sure. I think it is entirely possible that no one has yet figured it out.
So, the claim that we can “know” that there wasn’t enough time to “evolve” or come into existence without divine assistance is ridiculous.
And we don’t even come close to understanding what those odds might be. And statistics are voodoo math. The more you know about a system, the more the “odds” change.