It looks as if you moderated-out my earlier, incorrect e-mail (the original (51) – thanks for doing so.

Thanks for the reply. Actually, the example I gave IS one where the complexity is specified – i.e. the chances of dealing the specific card 6 of diamonds first is 1 in 52; and the chance of dealing the specific sequence 6 of diamonds… 10 of spades is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 68 (actually, 8×10^67).

The non-specific complexity is 1 chance in 1 (i.e. if you deal one card you are bound to get one card; and if you deal 52 cards you are bound to get a sequence of 52 cards); it’s just that you can’t say what the first card acually will be (i.e. it’s not specified) or what the actual sequence will be (that isn’t specified either).

The analogy with biology is this (I think): given that life originates, and is capable of replication based on a replicating molecule such as DNA, then provided it doesn’t become extinct you are bound to have a variable genome after a certain period of time, simply because replication of such molecules is imperfect. So after, say, 4 billion years the probability of there being a variety of organisms with different genomes is essentially 1 (i.e. 1 chance in 1) – simply because life survived through all that time – just like if you deal a deck of cards then you are certain to get a sequence of cards. But the chances of deciding AT THE OUTSET what those organisms will be is virtually impossible to predict, just as it would have been virtually impossible to predict that I dealt the specific sequence 6 of diamonds…10 of spades earlier.

In other words, provided life survived this long then it is not at all unusual for us to have the biological plethora we do have – it is just one of a huge number of possible biological plethora (plethoras?), it just happens to be this one.

Good example of complexity with the deck of cards. But what we’re really looking for is specified complexity. Your example is not specified so now lets add specification and see what happens. We’ll use the order you gave as the specification. Try getting the cards to come out in that same order again without cheating or planning of any kind.

GilDodgen (7), you wrote:

“I like Phillip Johnson’s comment about the claim that large improbabilities can be overcome by breaking them down into many smaller, manageable improbabilities (the central claim in support of the Darwinian macroevolutionary mechanism). Johnson observes that this claim amounts to suggesting that although it might be highly improbable that you will win the million-dollar lottery, this can be overcome by winning the thousand-dollar lottery a thousand times.”

I’m not sure what Johnson is saying here, but I think the apparent sceptical tone about overcoming large improbablilities by breaking them down into smaller ones is grossly wrong. Today I dealt a pack of cards as follows (S=spades, C=clubs, H=hearts, D=diamonds):
6D, 8H, JC, 8S, 5H, KD, 3D, 5S, 3S, 6S, JD, 7D, 10H, 9C, 7S, 9D, 1S, 2C, QD, 4C, 2D, 7C, 5D, 3H, JS, 10D, 2S, 1D, 7H, 2H, 8C, 4S, 9H, 8D, QC, 1H, 5C, QS, QH, 1C, 6C, KS, KC, 6H, 1S, 4H, JH, 10C, KH, 3C, 9S, 10S.

The chances of my dealing the 6 of diamonds first was 1 in 52. Having done that, the chances of dealing 8 of hearts next was 1 in 51. Having done that, the chances of dealing the Jack of clubs next was 1 in 50.

Relatively small odd (although I wouldn’t bet on a horse with those odds!). Yet the chances of drawing that precise sequence of 52 cards (or indeed ANY precise sequence of 52 cards) is of the order of 10 to the power of 68! Which is absolutely HUGE.

Perhaps Philip Johnson would like to think again…

Thanks, bFast! I feel understood

Similarly, RM+NS may be the better explanation in specific situations, if the likelyhood is high enough. One example is possibly the cave fish from another thread – the probability of the necessary mutations hasn’t yet been shown. As I’m suggesting, some situations may have probabilities on the likely side of the threshold probability, while other situations may be on the unlikely side. Assertions can’t sufficiently discriminate. Likewise, examining the extremes sheds insufficient light on the variety of possibilities.

A simple refuation of the extreme cases is not a universal refutation, since there is a specific threshold condition against which each of the comparisons are to be made. (I’ll agree, however, that specific exceptions will refute the univisersality of a claim, but that is different than my point.)

We can look at the extreme of probability — 10^120+, or we can observe much less proable events. However, as RM+NS presents an absolute solution, a solution to “all” cases, then any case that is outside of its reach falsifies such universality, therefore it is fully valid to look at the extremes.

That said, my favorite little mutation is the HAR1F gene. It is rock-consistant for all mammals (at least) except humans, where 18 mutations have produced a modified three-dimentional form. The modified form seems to require all 18 mutations to have occurred simultaneously, and seem to be involved in the advance in intelligence of the human. This is surely a “middle ground” mutational challenge. Yet this challenge is clearly beyond the edge of evolution if the malaria experiment is valid.

Thanks for the opportunity to answer that question. I’ll try to avoid preparing a dissertation

One concern I have is that the debates about ID often look at only extreme cases. That is, they seem to be of the form “this can’t have happened without involvement of intelligence” or simply “that is so unlikely that it can’t happen”. That I argue, is too simple of an analysis, because it avoids basic tenets of ID. Dr. Dembski, if I read his work correctly, built an explanatory filter with probabilities forming the backbone. As I understand his position, he attaches an estimate of a probability: 10 ^ 120 for specified complexity. My concern is that discussions about ID seem to ignore that it is built around probabilities and not simple absolutes.

The dispute is not about things that are wildly improbable, which the tornado in a junkyard arguments bring up. Those are simple combinatorial arguments, with factorials of huge numbers, so it is easy to see that they are outside of the probability of specified complexity. Likewise, other highly probable events are so far to the side of being explained as regular, like BarryA’s example of a falling hammer, that they are also not in dispute. The less-understood middle ground is different, however.

What I am suggesting is that unlikely events don’t automatically have the best explanation of “Design”. I’ve seen several arguments which are built like that. The argument would only apply if the probability is sufficiently low, like 1 in 10 ^ 140. But, some events, like the probability of a beneficial mutation in specific environments, may have a probability on the other side of the design limit, like having a probability of 1 in 10 ^ 20 (making up numbers). Bantering about the unlikelyhood, or inferring from other studies with different controls, is insufficient, I’ve been holding. At the minimum, arguments about the evidence must be qualified based upon the uncertainty of the probabilities implied by evidence.

Which leads to the next point. I agree with your major points about incredulity – when compared to the probabilitistic thresholds of ID those arguments are only about the left and right ends of a probability curve. But, I’m suggestng they don’t address the middle ground of ignorance. Some events may, or may not, fall on the random side of the explanatory filter, and not be best explained as requiring intelligent agency. In fact, as more studies are peformed, and the understanding of events changes, people who use ID must be willing to accept that the best explanation for some arguments will change over time. Dogmatism is not needed, because ID, as it is being developed, should be quantifiable and measurable in terms of probabilities.

The RNA world hypothesis is seen as the great OOL savior. The presumption is that life started as simple RNA replicating molecules. Some success has actually been made in producing replicating RNA, albiet the amount of success seems to be significantly exaggerated by the scientific community and the press.

In any case, if replicating RNA once existed, we still need a path to the present day where RNA primarily plays an intermediate role, where DNA stores the data for the long term, and proteins primarily do the work. Somehow two transitions must have been made, a transition from RNA to RNA + Protein and a transition from RNA to DNA + RNA.

This particular finding, a real-world example of some RNA “doing the work”, and a protein assisting. As such it is seen as an intermediate form between the RNA world and the RNA + protein world. However, it still leaves wide open the chicken and egg question — if RNA world, then some mechanism (RNA or protein) must take the pattern held in RNA and convert it to protein. I do not believe that an RNA molecule that actually “does the work” would directly translate to protein. So in addition to some mechanism being needed to make the protein, some reasonable pattern must be used to make that protein. So which came first, a mechanism to create protein or a valid pattern to make protein from?

OOL remains to be a grand mystery to science.