# Quotations on Odds of Evolution



## bradofshaw (Sep 20, 2007)

Does anybody have any handy citations where I can quote actual evolutionists who admit the relative improbability of evolution? I know that I've seen some before where guys say something like, "we really don't know how we overcame those odds, but we feel that eventuall we will find ways to lower those odds." Quotes referencing any level of evolution would be helpful.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 20, 2007)

Here are some.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 20, 2007)

Thanks Bob!


----------



## Poimen (Sep 20, 2007)

Here is a famous one from Julian Huxley:



> Julian Huxley, a leading advocate of evolution, explains that it is mathematically impossible for natural selection to work. He asked a mathematician to tell him what the chances were that a horse could be produced by the random chance of evolutionary process. He was told that the mathematical likelihood of success would be:
> 
> ". . the figure 1 with three million naughts [zeros] after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print) . . No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." *Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46.



Taken from here:
Evolution Facts


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 20, 2007)

Take a look at this post from Christian Skepticism on a way to make the improbable probable...


----------



## caddy (Sep 20, 2007)

Also see here: Post # 19

http://www.puritanboard.com/f49/god-math-9817/


----------



## SRoper (Sep 21, 2007)

I never understood the argument against evolution from probability. It seems silly to talk about the probability of something after it already happened. To illustrate my objection, think about the 2006 baseball season (you can substitute your sport of choice here). What is the probability that all the scores from every game down to the inning would have worked out the way they did? It's nearly zero. Should we then say that because the outcome was so improbable that it didn't actually happen?


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 21, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I never understood the argument against evolution from probability. It seems silly to talk about the probability of something after it already happened. To illustrate my objection, think about the 2006 baseball season (you can substitute your sport of choice here). What is the probability that all the scores from every game down to the inning would have worked out the way they did? It's nearly zero. Should we then say that because the outcome was so improbable that it didn't actually happen?



The difference is that nobody is arguing that a particular mechanism _caused_ the outcome of the 2006 season. 

If someone were to propose that a series of factors lead inevitably to the outcome, then the probability method would be an interesting way to critique that theory.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 21, 2007)

Scott, this was actually the exact conversation I was having. Oddly enough, the topic of conversation was whether or not advanced alien life existed, and if so had they visited us. I asked, given the already large improbability of evolution being the cause of intelligent life here on earth, if it was more or less likely that other advanced life had evolved elsewhere in the universe. The answer I got was that the known universe was large enough and the elements needed for life common enough that it would be statistically improbable for life not to have evolved somewhere else.

Anyway, I made the statement that evolution always has in its back pocket, "well, in spite of statistical improbability, we're here, so I guess we beat the odds." I was looking for actual evolutionists who were daunted by the numbers in order to answer someone who said that no credible evolutionist would ever resort to that tactic. It was a secular board that doesn't allow "religious" discussion, and everyone was warned not to take it there, so I never got to really respond.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 21, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > I never understood the argument against evolution from probability. It seems silly to talk about the probability of something after it already happened. To illustrate my objection, think about the 2006 baseball season (you can substitute your sport of choice here). What is the probability that all the scores from every game down to the inning would have worked out the way they did? It's nearly zero. Should we then say that because the outcome was so improbable that it didn't actually happen?
> ...



That's only because the mechanism in not in dispute; we all know that teams of players meet together to play games.

No evolutionist says that evolution inevitably leads to the outcome that we observe today. They say that evolution could have taken any number of paths.


----------



## Answerman (Sep 21, 2007)

If you scroll down on this page and click on the documentation to Don Patton (Geologist) lectures, he has a lot of quotes in there. He calls his approach the antagonistic witness approach. Lots of self-incriminating quotes from evolutionists in these documents.

On-Site Videos and Quotes


----------



## Answerman (Sep 21, 2007)

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith has some pretty good lectures on this issue.

Media Library


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 21, 2007)

Today Andrew Sullivan took a swipe at anyone who believes in a recent creation as unworthy of civil discourse:

_. . . But for me, the evolution issue is very hard to get past. Those who believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that human life has not evolved from more primitive forms are people I cannot engage with in civil discourse. To posit faith in things unprovable and unknowable is one thing. To posit faith in something demonstrably falsifiable is another. I simply have no tolerance for creationism or for those who enable it. Creationists are as much an insult to reasonable Christians as they are to rational thought. And they perpetuate the notion that religious faith is indistinguishable from idiocy._
The Daily Dish


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 21, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I never understood the argument against evolution from probability. It seems silly to talk about the probability of something after it already happened. To illustrate my objection, think about the 2006 baseball season (you can substitute your sport of choice here). What is the probability that all the scores from every game down to the inning would have worked out the way they did? It's nearly zero. Should we then say that because the outcome was so improbable that it didn't actually happen?



It is an argument that differentiates between something happening without intelligence and with intelligence. A better baseball analogy would be the probability of a team scoring 20 runs without any intelligence involved. Just grab a few dozen people off the street, don't tell them any rules etc.

Now you find a team that has scored 20 runs in a game. The question is not denying the 20 runs, its a question of why it happened.

CT


----------



## SRoper (Sep 22, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > I never understood the argument against evolution from probability. It seems silly to talk about the probability of something after it already happened. To illustrate my objection, think about the 2006 baseball season (you can substitute your sport of choice here). What is the probability that all the scores from every game down to the inning would have worked out the way they did? It's nearly zero. Should we then say that because the outcome was so improbable that it didn't actually happen?
> ...



Right, and it didn't happen because some intelligence was there immediately orchestrating the runs (in other words, no one was there directing player X to get a run in the second inning). You missed the point and are confusing the issue by introducing the idea that intelligence has something to do with it. To use another analogy try flipping a coin 100 times and recording what you get. Then calculate the probability of getting the sequence you got. It will be very small (1 in 2^100). Does that mean that you didn't actually flip the coin but rather you purposely placed the coin down in that exact sequence?


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 22, 2007)

bradofshaw said:


> Does anybody have any handy citations where I can quote actual evolutionists who admit the relative improbability of evolution? I know that I've seen some before where guys say something like, "we really don't know how we overcame those odds, but we feel that eventuall we will find ways to lower those odds." Quotes referencing any level of evolution would be helpful.



Well - here is Darwin in his own words (Origin of Species): “Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?...To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2007)

SRoper said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > SRoper said:
> ...



Actually player X, Y or Z are all intelligent beings. Evolution does not have room for intelligence anywhere. Remove the intelligence and the counter breaks down.



> You missed the point and are confusing the issue by introducing the idea that intelligence has something to do with it.



But intelligence does have something to do with it. I have yet to see the argument that demonstrates that one can even get off the ground without intelligence. Lots of hand waving, yes, but nothing more than that.



> To use another analogy try flipping a coin 100 times and recording what you get. Then calculate the probability of getting the sequence you got. It will be very small (1 in 2^100). Does that mean that you didn't actually flip the coin but rather you purposely placed the coin down in that exact sequence?



In this analogy, just remove the intelligent agent (you) and don't replace yourself with any intelligent coin flipping system or system constructed by intelligence. Just leave the coin on the ground, and a piece of paper with a pen for recording the outcomes. Come back and see the coin there with 100 marks on the paper for heads and/or tails. Then lets have a discussion.

CT


----------



## SRoper (Sep 23, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Actually player X, Y or Z are all intelligent beings. Evolution does not have room for intelligence anywhere. Remove the intelligence and the counter breaks down.



You are equivocating. The baseball players are actors no different than the organisms in evolution. Again, there is no grand intelligence orchestrating the events of the game.



> In this analogy, just remove the intelligent agent (you) and don't replace yourself with any intelligent coin flipping system or system constructed by intelligence. Just leave the coin on the ground, and a piece of paper with a pen for recording the outcomes. Come back and see the coin there with 100 marks on the paper for heads and/or tails. Then lets have a discussion.
> 
> CT



But that reduces the "intelligence" to a being that mechanically flips a coin and records the results. That's not a very interesting definition of intelligence. The sequence produced cannot be said to be designed in any meaningful sense. You've only shown that intelligence is needed to observe and record results.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 25, 2007)

SRoper said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Actually player X, Y or Z are all intelligent beings. Evolution does not have room for intelligence anywhere. Remove the intelligence and the counter breaks down.
> ...


[/quote]

One does not need to posit a sovereign God to refute evolution by way of intelligent design. If intelligence is required at any point, then the game is over. For example, one could not hold to open theism and evolution as it is taught in the universities.



> > In this analogy, just remove the intelligent agent (you) and don't replace yourself with any intelligent coin flipping system or system constructed by intelligence. Just leave the coin on the ground, and a piece of paper with a pen for recording the outcomes. Come back and see the coin there with 100 marks on the paper for heads and/or tails. Then lets have a discussion.
> >
> > CT
> 
> ...



I am not reducing intelligence to any degree, but instead, I am just pointing out that one needs intelligence for minimal activities.

Even using the term, "mechanically" implies a intelligence to design a machine to do a task, however trivial one believes it to be.

Lastly, the whole analogy breaks down because one has to first show that the whole thing comes down to various coin flips or steps from one stage to the next. The whole deal with irreducible complexity is to attempt to show that various simple systems could not rise due to simple steps.

CT


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 25, 2007)

Gentlemen, I really appreciate your dialog here.

Hermonta, not to derail your discussion at all, but I do disagree that using the word 'mechanically' implies intelligence. It doesn't, it only implies 'mechanism' and that's what the whole debate is about isn't it? Natural selection and mutation are both part of the Darwinist's mechanism and they do not need intelligence to work. However, this mechanism cannot account for 'information' and so there in lies the need for a mechanism that does require intelligence.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 25, 2007)

Hey:

Mathematics destroys evolution.

WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION

Check it out.

-CH


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 25, 2007)

The interesting thing that came up in the conversation I was having, was that the evolutionist thought I was crazy for thinking chance had anything to do with evolution. In his mind, the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. could account for the formation of the building blocks of life which made it more of a statistical probability that life would form from basic elements. I had never heard this before. 

I also stumbled upon a evolutionist website which attacked some of the often quoted statistics in the same way, saying they didn't account for the naturally occurring mechanisms which promoted natural selection. When you account for these, the odds increase greatly, they said. 

Of course, the obvious question this begs is where did the governing laws, properties, and principles come from.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 25, 2007)

bradofshaw said:


> The interesting thing that came up in the conversation I was having, was that the evolutionist thought I was crazy for thinking chance had anything to do with evolution. In his mind, the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. could account for the formation of the building blocks of life which made it more of a statistical probability that life would form from basic elements. I had never heard this before.
> 
> I also stumbled upon a evolutionist website which attacked some of the often quoted statistics in the same way, saying they didn't account for the naturally occurring mechanisms which promoted natural selection. When you account for these, the odds increase greatly, they said.
> 
> Of course, the obvious question this begs is where did the governing laws, properties, and principles come from.



Actually, this is a common view. I used to hold to it. Here is the basic idea: There are many possible structures in an infinite universe (or infinite series of universes). There is only one (or maybe just a few) possible arrangements that will lead to life being self aware or aware of the universe. Therefore, if we find ourselves being self aware, the universe we live in _has_ to be one in which certain structures (ranging from subatomic to intergalactical) exist.

If we allow ourselves the luxury of believing in the possibility of an infinite number of possible arrangements for matter, energy, and force, one of them will lead inevitably to us being alive.

Part of this is pushed forward because of biochemistry. Certain molecules, once they exist, have only one way of interacting with other molecules. The evolutionists says, "see, all you need is that molecule to form, once it forms, everything becomes inevitable."

The more sophisticated statistical attempts against evolution seek to demonstrate that the likelihood of that one molecule (or other structure) being formed is too small to be seriously considered.

I agree with Scott Roper that the majority of statistical debunking is wrongheaded. Depending upon how you set up your statistical design, you can say all sorts of meaningless things.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 25, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Actually, this is a common view. I used to hold to it. Here is the basic idea: There are many possible structures in an infinite universe (or infinite series of universes). There is only one (or maybe just a few) possible arrangements that will lead to life being self aware or aware of the universe. Therefore, if we find ourselves being self aware, the universe we live in _has_ to be one in which certain structures (ranging from subatomic to intergalactical) exist.
> 
> If we allow ourselves the luxury of believing in the possibility of an infinite number of possible arrangements for matter, energy, and force, one of them will lead inevitably to us being alive.
> 
> Part of this is pushed forward because of biochemistry. Certain molecules, once they exist, have only one way of interacting with other molecules. The evolutionists says, "see, all you need is that molecule to form, once it forms, everything becomes inevitable."



Which demonstrates the other point I tried to make, which he casually dismissed as something a real scientist would never resort to. Because everything has come to exist as it now does, then whatever probability has been overcome is irrelevant, because it has happened.

But I do agree that statistics are not always trustworthy or useful. What I realized in the discussion was that not all the pocket arguments are that great. Some are out of date, and some are seized upon and misused by laypersons like me.


----------



## caddy (Dec 4, 2007)

According to the blind watchmaker theory, the theory states that because it does not see ahead and does not plan consequences it has no purpose in view. It just is. Given that theory, living results of natural selection overwhelmingly only give us the appearance of design for a purpose. 

My favorite:

Is it important to insist that the cosmos of which we are all a part must be understood by and with our rational minds ONLY IF it was *NOT* created by a rational mind?


----------

