Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the old improbable probability problem
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 76 (661892)
05-10-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by zaius137
05-10-2012 7:11 PM


Re: redirected post
Then referring to eq. (11) in Part I, we see that, for a cell consisting of Np proteins, each of which is a polypeptide containing Na amino acids (aa), the probability of random assembly is 1 in 10b where ...
And at that point, without looking at the "paper", I deduced that it was halfwitted creationist nonsense. And then I looked it up and found that I was right.
Do you know why this is very clearly the case, or shall I spoil the puzzle by telling you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by zaius137, posted 05-10-2012 7:11 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 76 (662174)
05-13-2012 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by zaius137
05-13-2012 2:11 AM


Re: probabiity problems
I disagree with this statement. Do all the variables need to be quantified before any hypothesis can be formulated? If so, please name an area of science where strict adherence to this principle applies.
In all areas of science, calculations of probability are made based on the facts and not on things that creationists have made up.
A magician performing before an audience of evolutionists produces two royal flushes in a row. The crowd stands to its feet in applause proclaiming, Look improbable events happen all the time. A single statistician, knowing the probability of pulling a royal flush is (649,350 : 1) and twice is (421,655,422,500 : 1) stands to his feet and yells fraud. The statistician is immediately ejected from the assembly as being closed minded to the possibility of very real magic.
And if evolutionists were wrong about probability theory in real life, it would not be necessary for you to make up a fictional story to illustrate your point, because then your point would be true and you could illustrate it with something that wasn't made up.
Funny if the statistician was a creationist ...
For some reason, however, creationists tend to be pig-ignorant of statistics. Who can say why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by zaius137, posted 05-13-2012 2:11 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 62 of 76 (662245)
05-14-2012 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by zaius137
05-14-2012 1:11 AM


Re: probabiity problems
Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are
No, that means that they know which hand was dealt*. But not the composition of the deck.
* Actually, it would be more precise to say that knowing the details of the very first life would correspond to knowing which hand was dealt, and of course they don't know that.
What can one really say about the origin of life. Something arose (but we don't know what) out of preconditions which we cannot specify, by a process of which we are uncertain.
Then along comes a man who tells we that he can calculate the odds of that. This man is a creationist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by zaius137, posted 05-14-2012 1:11 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 76 (662248)
05-14-2012 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by zaius137
05-14-2012 1:45 AM


Re: probabiity problems
I can honestly say I do not believe in magic can you?
Would your way of "honestly" saying this be, by any whilom chance, deeply misleading?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by zaius137, posted 05-14-2012 1:45 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 76 (665324)
06-11-2012 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by LexM1985
06-11-2012 11:27 PM


Re: bump for LexM1985
I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the PHD in biochem to form an original opinion about the science behind these claims ...
Most of the creationist arguments can be shown false without a detailed knowledge of biochemistry, because, of course, they are not based on a detailed knowledge of biochemistry. Indeed, as I argued in post #59, such an argument cannot be legitimately based on our knowledge of biochemistry, because of all the things we don't know.
I also read some criticism that this board was too evolution-biased and self-affirming. Maybe some people from here should post on The Evolution Fairytale and vice versa for more lively discourse.
Those of us who have tried, such as myself, have been banned for egregiously evolutionist behavior, such as citing facts. Usually this happens within a couple of days. Their complaints are therefore stupid, hypocritical and self-serving ... or, in a word, creationist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by LexM1985, posted 06-11-2012 11:27 PM LexM1985 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 76 (665381)
06-12-2012 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Genomicus
06-12-2012 1:02 PM


Re: probabiity problems
Just like to point out that with a thousand decks of cards you've got a much larger "sequence space" from which only a fraction will yield a useful combination of cards (in the context of a poker game). In other words, increasing the number of decks doesn't make it any more probable that you'll get a royal flush.
It makes it much more probable that you'll get a royal flush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Genomicus, posted 06-12-2012 1:02 PM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by dwise1, posted 06-12-2012 3:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024