A point about probability

If I may also ask the OP, what's the probability that there is going to be a 'pattern' to his shot ?

Well I mean you described a 'pattern' in your OP: And then you asked what was the probability of that particular pattern to happen. I asked what was the probability that a pattern would happen.I answered with a question which I hope will help find an answer to yours.EDIT: The answer to my question will help to answer yours Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

A shame this discussion didn't continue

Yeah, well I understood that quite well. But I would've liked the OP to answer my question ...Oh well, there are plenty of other subjects I suppose

I meant a pattern ad you mean a series of events.And of course, the answer is one. There is a 100% chance that there will be a series of events.Can we say the same thing about the origin of life ? This would be an interesting questio nto answer for sure.

Yeah, that's what I also think, and why I do think that the probability argument against abiogenesis is viable (when it is used correctly of course)

Of course, I did mention 'if it is used correctly'I should also make a precision here. After seeing the great misunderstanding on both sinds in the 'origin of life' forum regarding the word abiogenesis, I figured that there were two opinions in this debate:1- Abiogenesis: Defined as the origin of life by natural processes.2- Special Creation: Defined as the origin of life by a supernatural intervention.This is meant for clarity of discussion. If you do not agree with the two definition of the terms, you can change it. As long as we all agree on the same words having the same meaning.Given these definitions, the fact that at one point in time there was no life, and after that there was life is not proof that abiogenesis occured.

Maybe it was not clear, the 'natural process' part is an add-on from me as to keep the discussion more clearIf you don't like it, we can just discuss by talking about 'natural abiogenesis' and supernatural abiogenesis'I jsut want the terms to be distinct so that we avoid confusion

I feel you read Behe's new book ''On the edge of evolution'', because that does seem very much as the concept he develops in that book.

Of course, but the question is rather what is the proportion of mutations that do have a selectable effect ?The reality is that the great majority of mutations have such a small effect on an organism that they are unselectable. Furthermore, the smallest ratio of delitirious/beneficial mutation I have ever seen is 75 to 1. (Highest I saw is a million to one).Also, even mutations that have a "low" probability of occurring still have a fairly good chance of showing up in most organisms simply due to sheer numbers of individuals This is why it is relevant to verify if what we observe can come about in a step by step process. If it cannot, then gradual evolution is falsified.If there are things that we observe in nature that would require two or more mutations to happen simultaneously, then this would hinder the step by step process hypothesis. Of course, but if the math's are heavily against a scientific model, than this model becomes no more then a simple 'appeal to luck'.Suppose I walk down a beach, and see my name written in the sand. Mathematically, there is a very astronomically small probability that all the sand grains are all in this position. But even if the probability is vanishingly small, it is not zero, and so I could postulate that considering all the beaches in the universe, and in all the billions of parrallel universes, than the possibility that this arrangement of sand grains happens naturally somehwere is high, and so I just happen to be at that very particular place.Theoretically, my hypothesis is 'valid', but it will always be an appeal to luck, and we all know that the more logical hypothesis to draw is that someone wrote my name in the sand.

I have not yet read Behe book, it is actually in shipment and I expect to recieve it soon.Basically, he develops exactly the idea you have in mind, about the probability of multiple complementary mutations happening simultaneously.I think this idea came to him because of the objections he encountered to his ireducible complexity argument. Obviously, his 1996 book 'Darwin's black box' made a lot of waves. Cetainly, some of the objections were reasonable, such as that the parts used in an irreducibly complex system could be useful in another system, and thus thiese pieces could have developpped independantly. Of course, this argument can only bring you so far in terms of refuting Behe's irreducible complexity. At one point, you will have to refer to double, triple, etc. simultaneous mutations to explain any given irreducibly complex system. This is why I think Behe started to investigate the probabilities of these mutations, and how many times you can statistically refer to them durign a given number of generations inside a given population number.All this deeply strengthens irreducible complexity, because if Behe was accused of 'arguing from ignorance', his opponents were simply appealing to luck. Because of what is discussed in 'On the edge of evolution', this opposition is no longer holdable.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

My analogy was more about the relationship between mathematical probabilities and scientific hypothesises and theories. At what point does a theory become a simple appeal to luck ?Of course, the issue is not if mutations happen. Or if natural selection happens. It is about if natural selection+mutations can produce all the biological structures we see in nature.If some structures require two mutations to happen at the same time in the same individual in order for them to be advantageous, what is the probability of it happening ? What if some structures require three simultaneous mutations ? or four ? or five ? When does it become a simple appeal to luck ?Now this is the thing, on a theoretical level, mutation+natural selection can produce absolutely anything in one single generation. Theoretically, I can produce a baby which would be a bear. ''All'' I would need is that every single mutations required to change my human DNA to the DNA of a bear happen in that single generation. Mathematically, it can happen. But would it be scientifically justifiable to propose this explanation if it did in fact happen ? I do not think so, because it would simply be an appeal to luck analog to my example of the name on the beach. Proposing that my baby's embryo was genetically modified by some evil crazy scientist from the government would probably be the way to go.Ok I know my example is a bit silly, still, I hope that what I mean to say is clear enough.

I'll probably have a couple once I read Behe's book. As of right now, I would think every irreducibly complex system requires at least a two simultaneous mutations. Since by definition, an irreducibly complex system cannot be deconstructed piece by piece, it cannot have been constructed step by step, or one mutaiton at a time, and so at one point two or more steps must have been down at the same time to make it become irreducibly complex. Natural selection isn't being questioned here, it is rather Neo-Darwinism; the capacity of Mutations+Natural selection to create. This is revealed by Behe's title: On the edge of Evolution. Sometimes, hearing some evolutionists, it seems as though Neo-Darwinism has no limits in its capacity to create, but I do think that there is a limit, an edge, to the powers of Neo-Darwinism. Even on a theoretical level. (considering a finite amount of time of course)

I am not an expert on Behe's argument of irreducible complexity, but I do think every point you have brought up here have been answered by Behe on his blog (I don't check it regularly thoug hI can't really direct you on that)The one thing I noticed when irreducible complexity is being discussed is that often enough, people usually consider Behe's initial statements about irreducible complexity in his 1996 book, and then go on to see the arguments against it on sites such as talkorigins.org. But of course, all the waves of criticism Behe has received did not go unanswered on his part, but unfortunately, rarely anyone from both sides go beyond the initial rebuttals. Neutral mutations do not exist, only nearly-neutral mutations do (which have been redefined by Kimuara is effectively neutral mutations) Well obviously the argument Behe makes in his recent books is that some aspects of the biodiversity we see implies that these limits have to have been exceeded. Of course, and this was the case of the OP with the video of an amazingly improbable golf shot. It is arguing from hindsight since it was a recorded event that has been witnessed and documented.On the other hand, none the gradual formations of any of the systems that are been discussed here has been witnessed or documented, they have only been assumed. Thus I would think it is not arguing from hindsight

Don't worry, I do not have any problem with deep time and 3D space. I mentionned a finite amount of time because the limit to evolution isn't applicable with infinite time, since any improbable event will happen with infinite time.But since you don't have an infinite amount of time to work with, than evolution does have a limit. The thing here is to discover where is that limit, and if currently observable biological systems require this limit to be exceeded in order to have been produced by natural-Selection+Mutations