Lee Spetner responds (briefly) to Tom Schneider

_{William Dembski

November 10, 2006

Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Tom Schneider, “Mr. Information Theory” for the pro-Darwin side, criticized Lee Spetner (author of Not a Chance) for a probability calculation characterizing evolutionary processes. Here is a reply by Spetner that I’m posting with his permission:

Someone just brought to my attention the website http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html
which criticizes a probability calculation I made. . . .

Schneider is mistaken. He evidently did not take the trouble to understand what I was calculating. My calculation is correct. The probability 1/300,000 is the probability that a particular mutation will occur in a population and will survive to take over that population. If that mutation occurred it would have to have had a positive selective value to take over the population. If that occurred, then all members of the new population will have that mutation. Then the probability of another particular adaptive mutation occurring in the new population is again 1/300,000 and is independent of what went before Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I have already taken account of the occurrence and take-over of the first mutation.

Therefore, the correct probability of both these mutations occurring and taking over their populations is the product of these two probabilities. And, as I wrote, the probability of 500 of them occurring is the probability 1/300,000 multiplied by itself 500 times. My calculation is correct and Schneider is mistaken. He is similarly mistaken about what he wrote about the article in Chance – Probability Alone Should End the Debate, http://www.windowview.org/science/06f.html, since that article relied on my calculation.

Comments

Chance is a minor component because for most populations, a very large sequence space is sampled at each generation. For instance, each newborn human is generally estimated to carry about 1 new gene mutation. That means that 300,000,000 Americans will display 10,000 new mutations/gene/generation (ballparking at 30,000 genes). 6 billion humans will sample 2x10^5 variants/gene/generation. That's a lot of variation! That's also why the 1/300,000 number claimed by Spetner seems way too low, by the way. (I wonder whether he confused mutation rate with the chance of a mutation appearing in a population. ) For instance, as mentioned above essentially every possible single amino acid substitution appears de novo at every human generation. The chance of fixation of a new mutation with even a small selective advantage (say, 1%), is 2s, i.e. 2%. That means that it would take only 50 generations on average for a new selectively advantageous aa substitution to appear and "sweep" a human-size free-breeding population. And when that happens, the time to fixation is rather short - few dozens generations or so.Andrea_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

"From the quotes provided here and at Tom SchneiderÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s site itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hard to understand how the original argument went. How is the number 1/300,000 derived?" Id also be interested to know what organism we're talking about. "If the cell canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make a new protein without changing the qualtity control functions in cells simulataneously (to accomodate the specific new protein(s))..then you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have new proteins just waltzing into the mix to increase fitness." I don't know how you'd define 'new protein' exactly, but pretty large changes have been observed occurring in populations in culture (acquisition of a new binding domain for example) so I don't think it's true that the cell can't make new proteins. To be fair I haven't read the article though. "Of course, the creative part of NDE is provided not by the passive working of natural selection, but by the allegedly random fodder provided to natural selection by mutations." I guess the argument is that what variation is actually selected for is not random even though the underlying variation is. I guess what the variation determines is the possible directions that selection is able to take. "chance is the biggest obstacle to the intuitive acceptance of their theory by the lay public." Something like 'the miracle of life is a result of a gazillion accidents all piled up on each other' seems an unwarranted philosophical extrapolation from evolutionary theory to me, and of all the evolutionary biologists I have heard speak I have not heard one of them come close to saying anything like that. On the other hand something like 'the processes we have observed that we have evidence to show that they have been a major force in evolution have no apparent direction or goal' doesn't really sound as catchy. I'd be happy with 'evolution appears to be unguided' but we shouldn't be teaching kids scientism so the 'appears' shouldn't really be necessary when speaking in a scientific context.Chris Hyland_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

[Slightly Off-Topic] Has anyone else read the exchange between Spetner and Max? Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue It goes over some issues relevant here, such as probabilities and increasing information contents. Good read. (I think I'll soon purchase his book Not By Chance...)Atom_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

People like Dawkins make a big deal out of how chance is a "minor" component of their schema because they recognize that chance is the biggest obstacle to the intuitive acceptance of their theory by the lay public. To dim the natural incredulity most people feel when they are told that the miracle of life is a result of a gazillion accidents all piled up on each other, they make much noise about the NON-random action of natural selection. Of course, the creative part of NDE is provided not by the passive working of natural selection, but by the allegedly random fodder provided to natural selection by mutations.tinabrewer_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

My thought process when I read interesting articles and comments like this is always: If ID proponents use chance to infer that something is unlikely, and Darwinism proponents use chance to infer that something is actually likely, how can chance be a "minor ingredient" (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 49) like Dawkins claims?jzs_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

It's probably worth noting in the link I posted earler that the crossover procedure used defaults to "crossover and grow" - so any crossover between two words of four letters each will be a word of longer than four letters; the growing can be implemented as a miutation as well, but i thought it worth noting that's the way it was implemented. The M-code is available here: http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/gaWordLength.mfranky172_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

From the quotes provided here and at Tom Schneider's site it's hard to understand how the original argument went. How is the number 1/300,000 derived?Andrea_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, DLH: You two should check out the latest issue of Creation Research Quarterly. There si a good article titled "The Elimination of Mutations by the Cell's Elaborate Protein Quality Control Factory: A Major Problem for Neo-Darwinism". Not that this is the only reason SchneiderÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s article is faulty, but it (the article I posted the title to) simply presents powerful arguments that suggests everything that Schneider hopes for is moot on the subject presented in this CRSQ article alone. ie. If the cell can't make a new protein without changing the qualtity control functions in cells simulataneously (to accomodate the specific new protein(s))..then you can't have new proteins just waltzing into the mix to increase fitness.JGuy_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Zachriel Consider an analogy with a population of words. Suppose a word can evolve by random point-mutation or by random recombination with other words in the population. If a mutant forms a valid word, it is added to the population. If not, it is ruthlessly eliminated. The population is limited to a few hundred of the longest words. I ran this experiment, but the dictionary I found only had words up to 8 letters :( The results can be seen here: http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/sample.htmlfranky172_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Probability theory alone destroys non intelligently designed theories on the origin of life in our cosmos. According to J.B.S. Haldane "How small must the first natural organism have been? If this minimum involves 500 bits (of specified information), one could conclude either that terrestrial life had had an extraterrestrial origin (with Nagy and Braun) or a supernatural one." see Steve Jones' quotes on http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/10/origin-of-life-quotes-by-jbs-haldane_30.htmlidnet.com.au_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Thanks Zachriel for explaining Schneider's calculations. That makes more sense now. Schneider argues:
If such a string were to be generated using independent selection of the amino acids, then the probability of generating any particular string is 20-300, a very small number indeed. While this may be true for random strings, it does not directly apply to proteins found in living organisms. Why? Because individual mutations accumulate one-at-a-time and there is amplification (replication) between steps. That is, if one starts with a given amino acid string, the mutations in the genome (from which the string is derived) are sequential.
Aside from the Genetic Entropy issue detailed by John Sanford, Schneider appears to beg the question of abiogenesis by assuming mutations to lage populations of already existing cells. That appears to be a far cry from the calculation as to how the self reproducing cell originally came together. How do you get the first self replicting cell if there is no self reproduction before then? e.g., The smallest self replicating genome found so far SAR11 appears to have about 1354 genes, each with numerous amino acids. Genome Streamlining in a Cosmopolitan Oceanic Bacterium, Stephen J. Giovannoni et al. Science 19 August 2005: Vol. 309. no. 738, pp. 1242 - 1245 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5738/1242 Lean Gene Machine: Ocean bacterium has the most streamlined genome http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000743E0-AA06-137B-A7A583414B7F0000&colID=5 This gives an example of how "natural selection" works to minimize the genome's length - not increase it with extra DNA of no immediate value.DLH_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Tom Schneider's probability tutorial appears to have been written in haste. See: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html
A concrete example. Suppose we have 10 coins that land as 'heads' or 'tails' after they are all flipped at once in parallel. The probability of getting all heads is (1/2)10 = 1/1024. The probability of not getting any head in a parallel flip is 1-1/1024 so the probability of getting no heads after F parallel flips is (1-1/1024)F. After a number of flips F, the probability of finally getting all heads is 1 - (1-(1/1024))F. For example, after 1024 tries the chance of getting all heads at least once is only 1 - (1023/1024)1024 Ã¢â€°Ë† 63.2%. So it could take quite a while to get all heads!
My understanding of "The probability of not getting ANY HEAD" is "the probability of getting ALL TAILS" which is identical to "the probability of getting ALL HEADS." in a parallel flip. i.e., 1/1024, not 1-1/1024. I expect Schneider intended to say "probability of NOT getting ALL heads" in which case his calculations would appear to be correct for random trials etc. Consequently, I think the "probability of NOT getting ALL heads in ALL F sets of 10 parallel flips" would be 1-(1/1024)^F. Schneider's conclusions thus appear a bit dubious from my small understanding of probability. Maybe Schneider could clarify. His following application to heads/tails cards assumes all "mutations" or errorrs of one kind are positive and are kept, apparently compounded by his probability calculation error. Schneider may find it helpful to correct or clarify the above - OR correct his conclusion as follows: "So it indeed does end the debate, [Spetner and www.WindowView.org have] Tom Schneider has made a fatal error." (My comments above are from memory of ancient classess on probability. Hopefully some of the math whizz's can verify/clarify/correct them.)DLH_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Schneider's tutorial gets even more interesting. See: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html "A mutation occurs, perhaps changing the amino acid string. If the change is bad, which is true for the majority of changes, the organism dies and its genes are gone. " Oh that life were so simple. Schneider may find it instructive to read John C. Sanford's * Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, 2005, ISBN 1599190028 . Sanford reviews major population models showing that many mutations are near neutral or not harmful enough to cause immediate death. Instead they accumulate until they eventually cause species death. "Beneficial" mutations are so rare that they do not accumulate in practice.DLH_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

"While this may be true for random strings, it does not directly apply to proteins found in living organisms. Why? Because individual mutations accumulate one-at-a-time and there is amplification (replication) between steps. That is, if one starts with a given amino acid string, the mutations in the genome (from which the string is derived) are sequential. A mutation occurs, perhaps changing the amino acid string. If the change is bad, which is true for the majority of changes, the organism dies and its genes are gone." This guy is entirely full of it. Andmethinksitsoundsfamiliar. Maybe, he was frantically trying to find a way around the probability issues at too late an hour, and hence rediscovered Dawkins pre-school "logic".JGuy_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

correction: 'rat' should read 'mouse'.JGuy_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

From the website Lee links to, the guy wrote this analogy.... "We then find the card that has the most coins with heads up and we throw away all the other cards. So if even one card has an extra head, it will be found. We reproduce that card 100 times (with errors) and repeat the selection. Suppose that we make an error in copying a coin state about 1 time in 100. Then almost every other generation we will get another head. Starting from about 50% heads, it will only take 10 generations to get a card with all heads. That is what happens in nature. " Now, if this were true. Then 3000 generations later.. the fruit fly should have made many new beneficial proteins. .... or a mouse should have already been bred into another kind of rat with new proteins after 10 to 100 generations. An experiement is better than a thousand scientific opinions. In this case - in my opinion - not so scientific.JGuy_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Thanks to Tom Schneider I now understand how darwinist deals with these incredible odds... they glue their dice.Smidlee_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Dr Spetner must be mistaken because we know evolution is a fact and all extant organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce. Therefore anyone doing any probability calculations needs to remind themselves of those facts. (for those who do not know me, the above is sarcasm) For anyone who doesn't have or hasn't read Not By Chance I highly recommend it (for whatever that is worth). And if you live in the New England area you may borrow my copy.Joseph_{November 10, 2006
November
11
Nov
10
10
2006
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply