# Do most mathematicians really think evolution is impossible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033 "2013-11-16T02:26:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dostoyevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Dostoyevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dostoyevsky)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/1 "2013-11-16T02:26:25Z")
Some creationist friends of mine are making the argument that modern biologists are blinded by bias and that they should should listen to mathematicians, a group which my creationist friends assume to be overwhelmingly skeptical about the odds of evolution’s having occured. They cite stuff from [Fred Hoyle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang) and, curiously, the philosopher [Thomas Nagel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel), both of whom are atheists with doubts about probability of evolution. One passage from Nagel that gets a lot of traction with my creationist friends comes from his review of Dawkin’s God Delusion, where he writes: > [@](#): > > Of course there is a huge difference between this explanation and > the God hypothesis. We can observe DNA and see how it works. But > the problem that originally prompted the argument from design–the > overwhelming improbability of such a thing coming into existence by chance, simply through the purposeless laws of physics-- remains just as real for this case. Yet this time we cannot replace chance with natural selection. > > Dawkins recognizes the problem, but his response to it is pure hand-waving. First, he says it only had to happen once. Next, he says that there are, at a conservative estimate, a billion billion planets in the universe with life- friendly physical and chemical > environments like ours. So all we have to suppose is that the probability of something like DNA forming under such conditions, given the laws of physics, is not much less than one in a billion billion. And he points out, invoking the so-called anthropic > principle, that even if it happened on only one planet, it is no accident that we are able to observe it, since the appearance of life is a condition of our existence. > > Dawkins is not a chemist or a physicist. Neither am I, but general expositions of research on the origin of life indicate that no one has a theory that would support anything remotely near such a high probability as one in a billion billion. Though my friends concede that Nagel isn’t a mathematician, they claim he represents mathematicians’ thinking on the matter. And my friends aren’t the only creationists making this claim about mathetmaticians. [Here](http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html) a mathematician also makes the claim that evolution is mathematically impossible. Is it true that most mathematicians think this? Or is it true that a significant portion of them think this? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/2 "2013-11-16T02:38:01Z")
> [@Dostoyevsky](#): > > Is it true that most mathematicians think this? Or is it true that a significant portion of them think this? I have no evidence that they do. I strongly suspect that if a majority of any field of study considered evolution an impossibility, we’d know about it in no uncertain terms. I certainly believe that some mathematicians are creationists, and some of them will use “mathematical” ways to try to “prove” their views. But the simple fact of the matter is that maths are about numbers, not cosmology or biology or any single aspect of evolutionary science. I have as much interest in what a mathematician says about the “probability” of evolution as I do what my cat has to say. It’s all just “meow meow meow.” That aside, every single argument against evolution from a supposed mathematical position makes such alarmingly flawed suppositions about probabilities that they’re not even worth the pixels they’re printed on. -a- ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/3 "2013-11-16T03:18:16Z")
No. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/4 "2013-11-16T03:23:30Z")
> [@Itself](#): > > No. Well, I _could_ have just said that… ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/5 "2013-11-16T03:34:44Z")
Well, you could do a quick straw poll (unscientific, of course) of the board’s mathematicians and ask what their colleagues think. I’m not a mathematician (though I do have a degree) and I think this particular creationist argument is complete bunkum. As for the cited article, it comes from a colleague/friend of Behe, and that’s an automatic red flag. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/6 "2013-11-16T03:39:25Z")
Absolutely not. This crap goes back to Henry Morris, if not earlier. I have watched Morris in action, doing absurd “math” manipulation, and then claiming that “The mathematicians in the room are now on my side.” No, they aren’t. (He essentially proved that snowflakes can’t exist without each one being individually designed and engineered by an intelligent agent. You see, there are so very many possible snowflakes – or DNA molecules – so the odds of one just spontaneously popping up out of inert chemicals is one divided by that large number. This, obviously, displays a poisonous and deliberate distortion of how anyone believes snowflakes – or DNA molecules – come to exist.) Typical creationist bullshit, and dismissible at a Junior High School level of education. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/7 "2013-11-16T04:12:55Z")
Well, one problem right off the bat is, your thread title is talking about evolution, but your quote is talking about the origins of life. Those aren’t the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/8 "2013-11-16T04:19:16Z")
Just realizing that Carbon is the whore of the elements should make anyone reduce the odds by taking into account the most probable reactions, Of course that goes for anyone that is not being dishonest in their calculations. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/9 "2013-11-16T04:20:05Z")
I like the idea is that we shouldn’t trust biologists, who spend their lives studying biology, a technical question about biology, but instead should ask a group of people with no expertise in biology. You should tell your friend next time he needs a cavity drilled that dentists know way too much about dentistry to be trusted with such sensitive dental matters, and that he should really see if he can find a mathematician to perform the procedure. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/10 "2013-11-16T04:31:39Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I like the idea is that we shouldn’t trust biologists, who spend their lives studying biology, a technical question about biology, but instead should ask a group of people with no expertise in biology. > > You should tell your friend next time he needs a cavity drilled that dentists know way too much about dentistry to be trusted with such sensitive dental matters, and that he should really see if he can find a mathematician to perform the procedure. No, you get a topologist who will prove that’s not truly a hole in your tooth and thus there’s nothing to fill. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/11 "2013-11-16T05:10:30Z")
just because the odds are against it - does not mean it won’t happen anyway. In this case - the fact that it did happen means that the odds against it happening are meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/12 "2013-11-16T05:20:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Absolutely not. This crap goes back to Henry Morris, if not earlier. I have watched Morris in action, doing absurd “math” manipulation, and then claiming that “The mathematicians in the room are now on my side.” No, they aren’t. > > (He essentially proved that snowflakes can’t exist without each one being individually designed and engineered by an intelligent agent. You see, there are so very many possible snowflakes – or DNA molecules – so the odds of one just spontaneously popping up out of inert chemicals is one divided by that large number. This, obviously, displays a poisonous and deliberate distortion of how anyone believes snowflakes – or DNA molecules – come to exist.) > > Typical creationist bullshit, and dismissible at a Junior High School level of education. Woah. I guess I’ll quote an old professor of mine: “Statistically impossible events occur all the time.” A gigantic number of possibilities in no way disproves that a given outcome can’t exist. It’s really an absurd argument. Those familiar with simulation must come to grips with [combinatorial explosions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion) which occur with even pretty simple models. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/13 "2013-11-16T05:35:41Z")
> [@Dostoyevsky](#): > > Though my friends concede that Nagel isn’t a mathematician, they claim he represents mathematicians’ thinking on the matter. And my friends aren’t the only creationists making this claim about mathetmaticians. [Here](http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html) a mathematician also makes the claim that evolution is mathematically impossible. Is it true that most mathematicians think this? Or is it true that a significant portion of them think this? Behe?? Are you kidding? Behe is not a mathematician. So, I don’t see why we need to refute an unsupported hypothesis. If you think that most mathematicians think evolutions is impossible, then prevent your evidence. So far, you have not done so. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/14 "2013-11-16T05:42:57Z")
> [@Dostoyevsky](#): > > They cite stuff from [Fred Hoyle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang)… Interesting choice of the point to pick up Fred Hoyle’s story because if he couldn’t pick the winning horse in Steady State vs Big Bang, a belief he held for decades after the race was lost, and that was a field in which he was a foremost authority, why should we follow his lead in something in which he was no more an expert than you or me? ETA: And he was a lousy SF author. But so was Carl Sagan. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/15 "2013-11-16T05:46:18Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Well, I _could_ have just said that… And you gave a cogent and useful (and patient) response to the question, but really, the answer is just a flat ‘no’. ---
**Author:** ![Dostoyevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Dostoyevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dostoyevsky)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/16 "2013-11-16T05:57:39Z")
**John Mace** , you sound as if Behe is a completely unreliable source. I don’t know who he is, so if you could take a moment and enlighten me I’d appreciate it. **Miller,** would you mind editing my thread title to reflect the actual subject of this thread? Thanks. **simster** , you said: > [@](#): > > just because the odds are against it - does not mean it won’t happen anyway. > > In this case - the fact that it did happen means that the odds against it happening are meaningless. But from a creationist’s standpoint aren’t we begging the question to assume the truth of evolution as grounds for dismissing the creationist’s “odds” of its not having happened? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/17 "2013-11-16T06:13:56Z")
There is still a problem here, you are still putting together abiogenesis and evolution. If we stick to Abiogenesis, the creationist argument is not new, and it ignores many items: [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html) > [@](#): > > Response: > > ``` > [ul] > > ``` > > [li]The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).[/li] > [li] The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.[/li] > [li] The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.[/li] > [li] The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/18 "2013-11-16T06:23:13Z")
> [@Dostoyevsky](#): > > But from a creationist’s standpoint aren’t we begging the question to assume the truth of evolution as grounds for dismissing the creationist’s “odds” of its not having happened? No because we aren’t “assuming the truth” of evolution, it’s a confirmed fact. We see it in action everywhere; in the lab, in the evolution of antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, cancer cell evolution, and on and on. And the fossil record is absolutely clear. It’s a fact. Denying evolution at this point is very much like denying gravity; there’s that much evidence for it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/19 "2013-11-16T06:38:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life. This! Morris worked as hard as he could to come up with a truly gigantic denominator…and blithely assumed that the numerator was “1.” What marvelous logic! He calculated the odds that a random assembly of nucleic acids would produce…the DNA of a specific retinal cell in the left eye of a specific giraffe that lived 1700 years ago. No other possible cell; just that one. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033/20 "2013-11-16T06:55:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This! Morris worked as hard as he could to come up with a truly gigantic denominator…and blithely assumed that the numerator was “1.” What marvelous logic! He calculated the odds that a random assembly of nucleic acids would produce…the DNA of a specific retinal cell in the left eye of a specific giraffe that lived 1700 years ago. No other possible cell; just that one. Another flaw in that kind of creationist “argument from probability” is that it assumes a _random_ assembly _directly_ from totally unorganized nucleic acids to a large & complex DNA molecule. When in reality of course natural selection isn’t random (nor is the crystallization of snowflakes for that matter); nor did nature go from molecule-soup to a giraffe cell’s DNA in one leap. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-mathematicians-really-think-evolution-is-impossible/674033.md?page=2)