If you can refute the post, you're welcome to do so. I however can't.
Are the odds of getting the deck in the exact same order that high? I have no reason to doubt it. But I do find it amazing that it is higher than the number of atoms on earth.
Actually, with 2 possible outcomes, the probability
of one is not necessarily 50%.
Sure, coin flipping has the fabled 50/50 outcome.
But consider a student failing or not failing a test...
Depending on the student & the test, the odds
would span a very wide spectrum.
The problem with odds arguments is that they are very easily misapplied. I have yet to see a creationist odds argument that is not based upon false premises. Once an error is found in the premise there is no need to use any math to refute it.
But look at if this way, the odds of something happening or not are 50/50,
And to quote Terry Pratchett,
“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
The chances of what so patently absurd existing? The universe? This particular configuration of physical laws and constants? Is it a supersymmetrical universe? a multiverse? a holographic universe? a manyworlds universe? a computer simulation?
We don't know the variables, and the nature of reality hasn't been established. Until it is, how can any chances of anything be calculated?
Not at all. As I stated I've seen the odds argument in here many times whether it be about life, evolution, the big bang or whatever.
I was just simply pointing out that if a little deck of only 52 cards has a range of 8x10^67 ways to sort a deck, and the same two exact orders ever coming up, just imagine what everything around us has if it also was dependant on a certain order.
And now since its been brought up let's take abiogenesis and creationists saying we should be able to repeat it if it happened. If the elements, minerals, building blocks, etc had to be in a certain order, certain temp, certain time, the odds of us recreating it the same way are so far astronomical it will probably never be repeated. They think that's a win when it isn't. Hence the simple deck of only 52 cards that's so astronomical.
The chances of what so patently absurd existing? The universe? This particular configuration of physical laws and constants? Is it a supersymmetrical universe? a multiverse? a holographic universe? a manyworlds universe? a computer simulation?
We don't know the variables, and the nature of reality hasn't been established. Until it is, how can any chances of anything be calculated?
In the case of my quote, "dragons" but that was not the point, the point was to use humour to show the absurdity of giving odds to some outcomes, in the scenario the op touched on, life arising on earth...
Actually, with 2 possible outcomes, the probability
of one is not necessarily 50%.
Sure, coin flipping has the fabled 50/50 outcome.
But consider a student failing or not failing a test...
Depending on the student & the test, the odds
would span a very wide spectrum.
If one has an issue with probability, how about looking at how long it took (in years) for our earlier ancestors to get beyond stone tools and how long it took for us today to get to where we are from just a few centuries ago. Having contact with others, and their minds, seems to have rapidly enhanced our ability to progress, and it being almost inevitable as the world population grew larger.
I've seen the odds argument on here many times about life arising on earth/right chemical mixture, etc.
Ponder this for a minute. I would have never thought it true.
There are more ways to arrange a deck of 52 cards than there are atoms on Earth.
It seems unbelievable, but there are somewhere in the range of 8x10^67 ways to sort a deck of cards. That's an 8 followed by 67 zeros. To put that in perspective, even if someone could rearrange a deck of cards every second of the universe's total existence, the universe would end before they would get even one billionth of the way to finding a repeat.
Humans have a difficult time putting statistics into perspective. For example, when referring to what we think is an improbable event we'll say, "the odds were one in a million!" But on a planet of 7 billion people, events that are one in a million are statistically guaranteed to happen, thousands of times! So we give meaning and even cosmic or divine significance to things because we misunderstand how likely they are in our vast universe. I see this in creationism, in astrology, etc.
Refute the claim? It can easily be confirmed. Interestingly, the article didn't try to do that.
The number of ways to arrange a deck of cards is 52! (52 factorial), which is 52 x 51 x 50 ... x 3 x 2 x 1. If you Google 52! = you get 8.0658175 x 10^67 - the number cited by you and in the article.
The number of atoms on earth is an estimate. Easier to calculate is the number of protons and neutrons (nucleons) comprising the earth, ignoring the much smaller mass of electrons. According to this, "the mass of the earth as (6 x 10^24 kg). The mass of a proton or neutron is (1.67 x 10^-27 kg). Consequently, you can say to mediocre accuracy that the number of protons or neutrons in the earth is (mass earth)/(mass proton) = 3.6 x 10^51."
However, it is difficult to say what the average number of nucleons is for an atom on earth, since that will depend of the relative abundance of the various elements and the number of nucleons each. If the atomic weight of the average element were 50, there would be about 3.6 x 10^51 / 50 = 7.2 x 10^49 atoms. If the average were 10 nucleons per atom, there would be 5 times that number of atoms, or 36 x 10^49 atoms. If the average were 100, then 36 x 10^48 atoms. The link ends with, "I bet we can say that the number of atoms in the earth is something like 10^49-10^50."
Thus the number of playing card permutations, 8.0658175^67, is about 17 to 18 orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms on earth, or about a billion billion more permutations than atoms.
Why not us the galaxy instead of the earth? One source I checked estimated the mass of the Milky Way and its halo to be about 6 x 10^42 kilograms, which is also about 18 orders of magnitude larger than the mass of the earth, meaning that the permutations number is close to the number of atoms in the universe, although the composition of the universe is largely small atoms like hydrogen and helium, with more hydrogen, making the average number of nucleons per atom of the galaxy about an order of magnitude lower than that of the atoms comprising earth, and the number of atoms about an order of magnitude greater.
They come from creationists, and are invariably a variant of Hoyle's fallacy, which equates the odds of the constituents of a typical protein coming together all at once in a specified order to form that protein are like the odds of a 747 being assembled by a strong wind in a junkyard.
If you're interested, I've recopied a refutation of Hoyle's fallacy by RF's own @Polymath257
There are issues with those calculated odd just from a mathematical perspective. They almost always assume that a certain sequence of events has to happen *in a specific order* and that every step in this sequence is independent (in the sense of probability) from the other events. That is how they manage to multiply a large collection of numbers together to get odds that low.
The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.
Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.
Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.
Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.
Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.
And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen.
Before leaving the topic of odds, I'd like to introduce a favorite probability problem of mine called the Monty Hall problem based on the game show Let's Make A Deal, which ends with one contestant being asked to choose one of three doors for a prize. One door has a good prize like a new car, the other two duds like a goat each.
After the contestant chooses, Monty would show them a goat behind one of the doors they didn't choose, then offer the contestant a chance to trade his choice for the unchosen door not opened.
Superficially, the odds are 50/50 whether you keep your original choice or trade for the unseen door - a coin flip. One of those two doors still available has a car, and one a goat.
But it is actually twice as likely that Monty's door has the car than that the contestant has already chosen the car and should keep it, meaning that one should always trade. This is because there was 1 chance in three that the contestant chose correctly and Monty's two doors both have goats, and 2 chances in 3 that the contestant chose a goat and that Monty has the car and the other goat.
Showing the contestant a goat doesn't change that. The contestant would have needed to have seen that goat before he made his initial choice for the odds to be 50/50 that he chose the car.
First off I don't believe in creation. My post isn't an argument for or against abigenisis or creation. It's simply a post on odds of something happening in a certain order.
It looks like it is more of a post about how many different ways there are to arrange a deck of cards. The relevance to anything else is less clear.
But yes, the number of ways to arrange a deck of cards is *far* more than the number of atoms in the Earth.
If you include orientation (face-up face down, upside down), then the number of possbilities in a deck of cards is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
And now since its been brought up let's take abiogenesis and creationists saying we should be able to repeat it if it happened. If the elements, minerals, building blocks, etc had to be in a certain order, certain temp, certain time, the odds of us recreating it the same way are so far astronomical it will probably never be repeated. They think that's a win when it isn't. Hence the simple deck of only 52 cards that's so astronomical.
Well, the point is that the vast majority of any system does NOT have to be in some particular order or location.
We can be guided by the known laws of chemistry and physics which select specific arrangements and avoid others, thereby making a 'multiply the probabilities' approach to the odds simply wrong.
The problem with odds arguments is that they are very easily misapplied. I have yet to see a creationist odds argument that is not based upon false premises. Once an error is found in the premise there is no need to use any math to refute it.
The difficulty is that too many people don't understand what it means to be independent in the sense of probability and why that is required for the arguments. They simply take Hoyle's word for it and go.
Refute the claim? It can easily be confirmed. Interestingly, the article didn't try to do that.
The number of ways to arrange a deck of cards is 52! (52 factorial), which is 52 x 51 x 50 ... x 3 x 2 x 1. If you Google 52! = you get 8.0658175 x 10^67 - the number cited by you and in the article.
The number of atoms on earth is an estimate. Easier to calculate is the number of protons and neutrons (nucleons) comprising the earth, ignoring the much smaller mass of electrons. According to this, "the mass of the earth as (6 x 10^24 kg). The mass of a proton or neutron is (1.67 x 10^-27 kg). Consequently, you can say to mediocre accuracy that the number of protons or neutrons in the earth is (mass earth)/(mass proton) = 3.6 x 10^51."
However, it is difficult to say what the average number of nucleons is for an atom on earth, since that will depend of the relative abundance of the various elements and the number of nucleons each. If the atomic weight of the average element were 50, there would be about 3.6 x 10^51 / 50 = 7.2 x 10^49 atoms. If the average were 10 nucleons per atom, there would be 5 times that number of atoms, or 36 x 10^49 atoms. If the average were 100, then 36 x 10^48 atoms. The link ends with, "I bet we can say that the number of atoms in the earth is something like 10^49-10^50."
Thus number of playing card permutations, 8.0658175^67, is about 17 to 18 orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms on earth, or about a billion billion more permutations than atoms.
Why not us the galaxy instead of the earth? One source I checked estimated the mass of the Milky Way and its halo to be about 6 x 10^42 kilograms, which is also about 18 orders of magnitude larger than the mass of the earth, meaning that the permutations number is close to the number of atoms in the universe, although the composition of the universe is largely small atoms like hydrogen and helium, with more hydrogen, making the average number of nucleons per atom of the galaxy about an order of magnitude lower than that of the atoms comprising earth, and the number of atoms about an order of magnitude greater.
They come from creationists, and are invariably a variant of Hoyle's fallacy, which equates the odds of the constituents of a typical protein coming together all at once in a specified order to form that protein are like the odds of a 747 being assembled by a strong wind in a junkyard.
If you're interested, I've recopied a refutation of Hoyle's fallacy by RF's own @Polymath257
There are issues with those calculated odd just from a mathematical perspective. They almost always assume that a certain sequence of events has to happen *in a specific order* and that every step in this sequence is independent (in the sense of probability) from the other events. That is how they manage to multiply a large collection of numbers together to get odds that low.
The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.
Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.
Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.
Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.
Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.
And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen.
Before leaving the topic of odds, I'd like to introduce a favorite probability problem of mine called the Monty Hall problem based on the game show Let's Make A Deal, which ends with one contestant being asked to choose one of three doors for a prize. One door has a good prize like a new car, the other two duds like a goat each.
After the contestant chooses, Monty would show them a goat behind one of the doors they didn't choose, then offer the contestant a chance to trade his choice for the unchosen door not opened.
Superficially, the odds are 50/50 whether you keep your original choice or trade for the unseen door - a coin flip. One of those two doors still available has a car, and one a goat.
But it is actually twice as likely that Monty's door has the car than that the contestant has already chosen the car and should keep it, meaning that one should always trade. This is because there was 1 chance in three that the contestant chose correctly and Monty's two doors both have goats, and 2 chances in 3 that the contestant chose a goat and that Monty has the car and the other goat.
Showing the contestant a goat doesn't change that. The contestant would have needed to have seen that goat before he made his initial choice for the odds to be 50/50 that he chose the car.
A word of caution regarding simulation of the Money Hall problem....
I did it once for a skeptical friend. After about 10 trials, the odds
looked about 50/50. He didn't want to continue.
This was an example of a perversity wrought upon me by Murphy's Law.
