
QuickSearch

 
Chatting now:  Chat room empty  
timtak  
OnlyCurious  

Thread ▼ Details 


Author  Topic: the old improbable probability problem  
Dan Carroll Suspended Member (Idle past 1915 days) Posts: 2904 From: Chicago, IL, USA Joined: 
"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women." Stewie Griffin  
Lammy Member (Idle past 4 days) Posts: 3575 From: Chicago Suburbs Joined: 
I almost had a heart attack when I saw that report a few days ago. The Laminator We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
 
RAZD Member Posts: 18241 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 
For literal loren When you talk about the improbability of things you need to know what you are talking about. Your argument is just the "agrument from incredulity"  just because you cannot see how it could come to be is due to your lack of imagination if anything, a problem that does not hinder the natural world (especially if it has already solved the problem). Please read the OT on the issue of probability arguments (link below). ps  the {proposed new topic} is only for setting up new topics and not for discussing them. enjoy
 
RAZD Member Posts: 18241 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgibin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=107&p=12 with their new version for the {forum\thread\message}? {abe} another post that bears on this issue is one by Jacinto at This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*02*2005 09:21 AM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
 
AdminJar Inactive Member 
 
RAZD Member Posts: 18241 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 
 
AdminJar Inactive Member 
 
RAZD Member Posts: 18241 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 
Common error #1 This is the primary fallacy of these "calculations" that they presume to know that which they do not know. Common error #2 Let us assume a protein is formed with the pattern 51 bonds between 52 amino acids all in one particular order, where each letter represents one of 20 amino acids, and the resultant calculation by {creationist\IDist\etcist} is that the probability of this forming is Your typical "creatortionista" number. But this only calculates one way this molecule can form: this ignores the fact that the bonds in the molecule can be formed in any order and still end up with the same final result. The probability of the first bond forming is not (1/20), because any one of the 51 bonds can form first. To calculate this mathematical probability properly, first we calculate the probability that not one of the bonds forms, and the mathematical probability of this bonding {not} occurring is: And this means that the probability of the first bond forming is actually: Almost a sure thing eh? We do the same thing for the next bond, any one of the remaining 50 bonds has the mathematical probability of: A little less sure, but still a pretty solid likelihood eh? Let's carry on ... p_{48} = 1p{NOT}_{48} = 1{1(1/20}^{48} = 0.9147 or 1 in 1.0932 p_{47} = 1p{NOT}_{47} = 1{1(1/20}^{47} = 0.9103 or 1 in 1.0986 p_{46} = 1p{NOT}_{46} = 1{1(1/20}^{46} = 0.9055 or 1 in 1.1043 p_{45} = 1p{NOT}_{45} = 1{1(1/20}^{45} = 0.9006 or 1 in 1.1104 p_{44} = 1p{NOT}_{44} = 1{1(1/20}^{44} = 0.8953 or 1 in 1.1169 p_{43} = 1p{NOT}_{43} = 1{1(1/20}^{43} = 0.8898 or 1 in 1.1238 p_{42} = 1p{NOT}_{42} = 1{1(1/20}^{42} = 0.8840 or 1 in 1.1312 p_{41} = 1p{NOT}_{41} = 1{1(1/20}^{41} = 0.8779 or 1 in 1.1391 p_{40} = 1p{NOT}_{40} = 1{1(1/20}^{40} = 0.8715 or 1 in 1.1475 p_{39} = 1p{NOT}_{39} = 1{1(1/20}^{39} = 0.8647 or 1 in 1.1564 p_{38} = 1p{NOT}_{38} = 1{1(1/20}^{38} = 0.8576 or 1 in 1.1660 p_{37} = 1p{NOT}_{37} = 1{1(1/20}^{37} = 0.8501 or 1 in 1.1763 p_{36} = 1p{NOT}_{36} = 1{1(1/20}^{36} = 0.8422 or 1 in 1.1873 p_{35} = 1p{NOT}_{35} = 1{1(1/20}^{35} = 0.8339 or 1 in 1.1992 p_{34} = 1p{NOT}_{34} = 1{1(1/20}^{34} = 0.8252 or 1 in 1.2119 p_{33} = 1p{NOT}_{33} = 1{1(1/20}^{33} = 0.8160 or 1 in 1.2255 p_{32} = 1p{NOT}_{32} = 1{1(1/20}^{32} = 0.8063 or 1 in 1.2403 p_{31} = 1p{NOT}_{31} = 1{1(1/20}^{31} = 0.7961 or 1 in 1.2561 p_{30} = 1p{NOT}_{30} = 1{1(1/20}^{30} = 0.7854 or 1 in 1.2733 p_{29} = 1p{NOT}_{29} = 1{1(1/20}^{29} = 0.7741 or 1 in 1.2919 p_{28} = 1p{NOT}_{28} = 1{1(1/20}^{28} = 0.7622 or 1 in 1.3120 p_{27} = 1p{NOT}_{27} = 1{1(1/20}^{27} = 0.7497 or 1 in 1.3339 p_{26} = 1p{NOT}_{26} = 1{1(1/20}^{26} = 0.7365 or 1 in 1.3578 p_{25} = 1p{NOT}_{25} = 1{1(1/20}^{25} = 0.7226 or 1 in 1.3839 p_{24} = 1p{NOT}_{24} = 1{1(1/20}^{24} = 0.7080 or 1 in 1.4124 p_{23} = 1p{NOT}_{23} = 1{1(1/20}^{23} = 0.6926 or 1 in 1.4437 p_{22} = 1p{NOT}_{22} = 1{1(1/20}^{22} = 0.6765 or 1 in 1.4783 p_{21} = 1p{NOT}_{21} = 1{1(1/20}^{21} = 0.6594 or 1 in 1.5164 p_{20} = 1p{NOT}_{20} = 1{1(1/20}^{20} = 0.6415 or 1 in 1.5588 p_{19} = 1p{NOT}_{19} = 1{1(1/20}^{19} = 0.6226 or 1 in 1.6060 p_{18} = 1p{NOT}_{18} = 1{1(1/20}^{18} = 0.6028 or 1 in 1.6590 p_{17} = 1p{NOT}_{17} = 1{1(1/20}^{17} = 0.5819 or 1 in 1.7186 p_{16} = 1p{NOT}_{16} = 1{1(1/20}^{16} = 0.5599 or 1 in 1.7861 p_{15} = 1p{NOT}_{15} = 1{1(1/20}^{15} = 0.5367 or 1 in 1.8632 p_{14} = 1p{NOT}_{14} = 1{1(1/20}^{14} = 0.5123 or 1 in 1.9519 p_{13} = 1p{NOT}_{13} = 1{1(1/20}^{13} = 0.4867 or 1 in 2.0548 p_{12} = 1p{NOT}_{12} = 1{1(1/20}^{12} = 0.4596 or 1 in 2.1756 p_{11} = 1p{NOT}_{11} = 1{1(1/20}^{11} = 0.4312 or 1 in 2.3191 p_{10} = 1p{NOT}_{10} = 1{1(1/20}^{10} = 0.4013 or 1 in 2.4921 p_{9} = 1p{NOT}_{9} = 1{1(1/20}^{9} = 0.3698 or 1 in 2.7045 p_{8} = 1p{NOT}_{8} = 1{1(1/20}^{8} = 0.3366 or 1 in 2.9711 p_{7} = 1p{NOT}_{7} = 1{1(1/20}^{7} = 0.3017 or 1 in 3.3150 p_{6} = 1p{NOT}_{6} = 1{1(1/20}^{6} = 0.2649 or 1 in 3.7749 p_{5} = 1p{NOT}_{5} = 1{1(1/20}^{5} = 0.2262 or 1 in 4.4205 p_{4} = 1p{NOT}_{4} = 1{1(1/20}^{4} = 0.1855 or 1 in 5.3910 p_{3} = 1p{NOT}_{3} = 1{1(1/20}^{3} = 0.1426 or 1 in 7.0114 p_{2} = 1p{NOT}_{2} = 1{1(1/20}^{2} = 0.0975 or 1 in 10.2564 p_{1} = 1p{NOT}_{1} = 1{1(1/20}^{1} = 0.0500 or 1 in 20.0000 Notice that the last bond formed is the only one that has the mathematical probability of (1/20). Now to calculate the probability of all 52 amino acids lining up in the above formation with the bonds formed in any order we multiply the probabilities of each of the bonding stages, and we get: x(0.9006)x(0.8953)x(0.8898)x(0.8840)x(0.8779)x(0.8715)x(0.8647) x(0.8576)x(0.8501)x(0.8422)x(0.8339)x(0.8252)x(0.8160)x(0.8063) x(0.7961)x(0.7854)x(0.7741)x(0.7622)x(0.7497)x(0.7365)x(0.7226) x(0.7080)x(0.6926)x(0.6765)x(0.6594)x(0.6415)x(0.6226)x(0.6028) x(0.5819)x(0.5599)x(0.5367)x(0.5123)x(0.4867)x(0.4596)x(0.4312) x(0.4013)x(0.3698)x(0.3366)x(0.3017)x(0.2649)x(0.2262)x(0.1855) x(0.1426)x(0.0975)x(0.0500) = 5.39E13 or 1 in 1.85E+12 Which, while still large is significantly "more likely" than 1 in 2.25E+66. In fact it is 1.21E+54 times more likely. And the longer you take these kinds of calculations out the disparity between the "creatortionista" calculation and the real mathematical calculation grows. And this still does not adequately model all the possible ways the molecule could form. For starters, there are only 20 amino acids so those 52 positions have to have some repeats: the likelihood of a certain amino acid forming a "wrong" bond for one location does not mean that it is not "right" for another location, and the more often a certain amino acid is repeated in the whole protein the more this becomes a factor. To properly model this you need to apply it to specific examples. For further possibilities, there are any number of larger molecules that could be formed with "mistake" sections in them, where one or more amino acids are injected into the above sequence during formation, but which are then knocked out (cosmic ray bombardment, copy error, etc) leaving the proper formed molecule. This is not included in the "creatortionista" calculations, it is not even addressed. Common error #3 This is usually compounded by using a large modern molecule form without any analysis of just how much of it is needed to do the job: perhaps the example above only needs and the other half is a repeat sequence that does the same thing (doubling the effectiveness of the full molecule). This means that the probability of forming the necessary molecule is only x(0.6226)x(0.6028)x(0.5819)x(0.5599)x(0.5367)x(0.5123)x(0.4867) x(0.4596)x(0.4312)x(0.4013)x(0.3698)x(0.3366)x(0.3017)x(0.2649) x(0.2262)x(0.1855)x(0.1426)x(0.0975)x(0.0500) = 3.83E11 or 1 in 2.61E+10 or 71 times more likely to occur, and this kind of repeated sequencing is common on all modern proteins, meaning that ignoring it is making the model intentionally invalid. Typically there is no mention of other possible solutions to say nothing of any analysis to eliminate them as possibilities. Common error #4 Math is not evidence for reality. If you have a mathematical model that says something cannot happen when you have evidence around you that it has, the probability is high that the mathematical model is erroneous. Personally I see no reason to give this kind of "calculation" any tidbit of credence at all, there are just too many unknowns involved, and too many conceptual (mathematical and logical) errors in this kind of thinking, for it to hold any validity as any kind of model of reality. Enjoy. ps  I would like to thank Jacinto for his inspiration on the probability calculation http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgibin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=106&m=24#24 This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*08*2005 11:19 PM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
 
RAZD Member Posts: 18241 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 
What this means: That the argument from probabilities is invalid as an argument against abiogenesis. What this does NOT mean: That abiogenesis happened (only that it cannot be ruled out by this argument). The only honest answer is that we don't know what the real probability for abiogenesis {was\is}. For further consideration, specific aspects of these failures point to either malicious intent or stupid ability on the part of the person making the argument (imao): As regards the math calculation (#2): If the person making this argument had approached the topic with honest open and intelligent intent there is no excuse for the math being wrong unless the person is too stupid to understand the proper application: this information is available to study for anyone with a high school level of math. The other option is that the person doesn't care about getting the math right but only about making the picture look as impossible as possible: they are willing to lie to make the argument seem more valid than it is. As regards the evaluation of possibilities (#1 & #3): Failure to adequately discuss this means that there is a misunderstanding of what probability calculations entail. You have to know all the possible outcomes and all the succesful ones to calculate the {success} probabilities. Anything else is just an assumption made on a lack of data, and when you have to make an assumption in the data then you have to assume a probability that the assumption is correct. Again, this information is readily available to anyone interested in learning how to do probability calculations  if the person making this argument has approached the topic with honest open and intelligent intent. The person making the argument is either too stupid to make this evaluation or they are intentionally leaving it out to make the the picture look as impossible as possible: they are willing to lie to make the argument seem more valid than it is. On a personal note I think that anyone who publishes a book with this kind of invalid calculation in it, and who has not gone to the effort to validate the calculation by an outside source cognizant of the math involved is someone who is willing to misrepresent the truth in order to sell their {program\book\etcetera}. They are not a source that can be trusted to provide factual information. As regards the impossiblity of improbabilities (#4): Divide any "calculated improbability" you like by zero and the result is infinity. That is the difference between improbable and impossible. And that is why, even if the numbers are incredible, that abiogenesis cannot be ruled out. This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*08*2005 05:07 PM This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*07*2005 09:16 PM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
 
Modulous Member Posts: 7376 From: Manchester, UK Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
I'm going to begin by introducing you all to an old friend. Many of you already know him, but for those who don't here he is: Cytochrome C. He's an essential protein found in pretty much all life on earth. I'm also going to indulge in some friendly scorn. Creationists are happy to throw some ball park numbers around to get an idea of improbability. I am going to do a bit of that. There are at least 2.3 x 10^{93} different amino acid sequences that would result in functional cytochrome c^{1}. Chimpanzees meet the bill. Astonishing. Not only has one organism got an identical sequence, but it is one that is most morphologically similar to us. When we look at the fact that a trend arises through the biological orders, the chances start to get more and more slim. What are the chances that primates have a more similar cyto c protein Lets pull out some figures here. A turtle has ony 15 (of 104) amino acid differences with humans^{3}. That is, from an amino acid sequence point of view they are 86% similar. I don't have the data to work out exactly the probability that it would be this similar but let's just guestimate that it would be 86% of 2.3 x 10^{93}. The orders of magnitude end up being largely the same. Let's simplify everything here. The chances that two mammals would have the same sequence, reptiles would slightly different (15 amino acids), amphibians a little more different (18 amino acids) and fish being a little more different again (21 amino acids) can be guestimated at: 10^{93} x 10^{93} x 10^{93} x 10^{93} or (10^{93})^{4} = 1 x 10^{372} And this is just for four organisms. If we start to consider that when we look at all organisms, they follow this same trend. And not just on one protien, but throughout the entire genome. The mathematical odds go from plane ludicrous to utterly mind bending heights. ConclusionThis can be explained in only two ways. 1) Heredity, an observed process which would explain what we see fully. Not only does the recentbaramincreation God seem determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence but he seems determined to leave evidence that he doesn't exist. Is He just trying to test our faith? Has Satan influenced God so much as to allow him to fiddle the genome? Sources^{1}Yockey, H. P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology. New York, Cambridge University Press. ^{2}Calculation can be found HERE ^{3}Comparisons of molecules (proteins, DNA) of various species provide independent and compelling support for the hypothesis of biological macroevolution, David E. Thomas
 
RAZD Member Posts: 18241 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 
couldn't you overstate the probability by deducting an order of magnetude for each one? (just to be on the "safe" side) 10^{93} x 10^{92} x 10^{91} x 10^{90} = 1 x 10^{366} by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
 
Mirabile_Auditu Inactive Member 
RAZD wrote: We see them over and over .... this or that could not possibly have happened because the improbability is just too great. Usually these are based on very restrictive "allatonceoutofnothing" linear calculations where the errors involved are multifold and pervasive: Mirabile Auditu responds: We see them over and over.... excuses from atheists or Darwinists as to why any statistical computation  any one at all  is wrong, and Darwinism must march on in this godless universe. The calculation is a mathematical model of reality and not the reality itself. Mirabile Auditu responds: What do you bet that a calculation of how often a coin will turn up heads, or how often the ace of spades will turn up when picking a card at random will very accurately predict the "reality itself" when a large number of trials are held? What do you bet? Las Vegas has built a few casinos on "statistical models" that predict almost exactly the "reality itself." =============================== The calculation fails to account for the known preexisting molecules used in the formation of life that are found throughout the universe, and this failure means the calculation with creationallatonce including these molecules is unnecessarily extended downward, starting with too much simplicity. Mirabile Auditu responds: There has already been "too much simplicity" in the foregoing critique of other people's statistics. The calculation fails to account for the fact that the first life need not be as complicated as a modern cell, that the minimum configuration is much simpler as shown by the LUCA studies. This failure means that the calculation is unnecessarily extended upward, ending with too much complexity. Mirabile Auditu responds: What, pray tell, is "a modern cell"? ========================================== The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in Sm?sbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods. Mirabile Auditu responds: Darwin posited a profoundly "slow" stepbystep process. Today, Darwinists posit "assembly line fashion" and utilizing "failed experiments" to quickly make what is statistically unsupportable. Clever wordplay does not good science make. A "failure" necessarily precludes "selection." Cleverly invoking selection without selection is rather like promising that if we keep working on it, we'll surely find the right answer, by golly. ========================================= The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? Mirabile Auditu responds: By thinking. The "probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket" is quite a different number than the "probability that the lottery will be won." Attempting to reconcile dissimilarities is antiscientific and antiintellectual. Moreover, when an insuperable statistic is argued to a Darwinist, they inevitably decry it using antiscientific and antiintellectual arguments. Example: Give a probability of "one chance in 10exp50" and Darwinists will argue the entire lottery argument, and try an infinite number of attempts. Sorry, but "one chance" in finding a grain of sand out of a pile of 10exp50 grains does not give you license to keep trying forever. One chance in 10exp50 means... "one chance." That does not remotely imply that there is only one chance for a chemical reaction to occur, merely that the odds are not as fanciful as Darwinists pretend. ================================ Finally, the improbability of a thing occurring is not proof of impossibility of it occurring. It could well be that this is the only planet in all the universe that has life on it because it is a very improbably (sic) event. And if you divide the surface of the planet into all the different types of environments and do the same for all the other planets and moons and asteroids in the solar system alone you will have billionsXbillions of little experimental crucibles for carrying out experiments and if that is carried out over several billion year periods (4.55 billion year old earth, in a 13.7+ billion year old universe) with multiple "experiments" in a {day?hour?minute?} ... billionsXbillions of time periods, and do the same for all the billionsXbillions of stellar systems throughout the universe it does not take long to create an equally mind boggling number that reduces improbability down towards a definite probability. I'm at 1054 possiblities already on this one aspect alone ... and for a 1 in 106 chance that looks pretty good. Mirabile Auditu concludes: Infinity times infinity yields.... homo sapiens. This has long been promoted as science. But then again, these same folks who gave us one fraud after another are now peddling "multiverses." If life and fine tuning are insuperable, by golly we'll just be the only universe out of an infinite number of them where everything comes together. So you see, these hucksters jump out of one statistical fire and into another, far sillier one. Lucky us!
 
Adminnemooseus Director Posts: 3740 Joined: 
I suggest you click the "peek" button, at the bottom of this message, to see how quotes can be nicely formatted by using simple coding. Examples: quote:
Using one of these methods is much nicer that how you are doing it. Again welcome. Adminnemooseus
 
jar Member Posts: 28427 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
 
RAZD Member Posts: 18241 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 
Welcome to the fray on this board Mirabile_Auditu\SpiderMBA We don't hold newbies toes to the fire ... too much ... at the start. But you are no newbie. I expect you to play by the rules of this board  if you can. Now one of the little sticky points: this thread is in the science section, and what this means is that you {are\will be} held to a level of logic and rational thought consistent with all science and can be asked to substantiate any assertion you make. With this in mind you need to be careful to make assertions you can substantiate rather than just post wild opinions based on personal incredulity. Let's have a go eh?
This is an ad hominem attack on the messanger and doesn't address the message. What this means is that it is logically invalid and amounts to a null response: you would have been better saying nothing. It includes a groundless assumption that all people that don't have your opinion are godless, another logical fallacy. This is one of those not {B} exists therefore {A} logical fallacies as there is no reason for all not {B} to be {A} at all  it can be anything else. Two logical fallacies in the first statement: a twofer.
Another ad hominem attack on the messanger and it still doesn't address the message. Yawn.
Note that this is off the topic of probability, so if you want to continue this question we can move it to another thread (there should be one that discusses early life forms and what they likely were like). I will answer for now though: You left out "virtually"  when you state things like "always hearing from Darwinists" I suspect you are probably quoting a creatortionista site that misrepresents evolution  and it makes a world of difference. There are many changes in the DNA of most modern bacteria and virus from even just a few years ago, only a few exhibit the characteristics that lead some scientists to think they are similar enough to their early forms to provide insight to that distant past. But even they are not unchanged. One explanation for viruses is that they are a remnant of an earlier form of life that was dependant on RNA instead of DNA, and there are several other hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis (the "beginning of life" science). What this shows, is that your assertion "nobody has provided anything remotely resembling an explanation" is false, and thus any opinion you have based on that false position is also false. What is "primitive" about one of the most successful life forms on earth? The structure of the cell can vary from simple to as complex as the cells in our bodies: what distinguishes "primitive" at this level? What distinguishes it at the level of the DNA?
Yawners. Usupported assertion after unsupported assertion. Also at odds with reality. The theories of evolution have been tested and tested and tested, and so far the best theory on the books is still evolution: change in species over time. This has been observed to such a level that even AiG says it occurs. You said "statistically unsupportable" and I can now ask you for the precise calculations and the assumptions that go into that calculation: it is now your job to post those. The other option is for you to agree that you do not have that calculation done and withdrawn the comment (and don't use it again without providing substantiation). I will take this as a tacit withdrawal unless you do provide the actual substantiation.
Again: I can ask you to support this claim  what specific experiments, which specific failures occured. Document the assertion or withdraw it. The other option is for you to agree that you do not have that data and documentation and withdrawn the comment (and don't use it again without providing substantiation). I will take this as a tacit withdrawal unless you do provide the actual substantiation. Do you deny that speciation has occured?
Without substantiating your point above this is nothing more than rambling assertion. Back up your foundation before you make a conclusion that is founded on this ice at best. I truly am intersted in what this little experiment of yours involves.
Another ad hominem attack on the messanger  that's the third one so far. It is actually very easy. The point of the argument is that one ticket always wins, and that calculating  after the fact  what the probability of {that particular ticket} winning the lottery is actually irrelevant to the probability that ONE will win. What this means for the question of calculating the "probability" of life occuring is that it could very easily be the same kind of "lottery": one form of "life" will "win" and that calculating  after the fact  what the probability of that particular "life" winning the "lottery" is actually irrelevant to the probability that ONE will win. Or it could be some other pattern of possibilities: We don't know.
insuperable: Impossible to overcome; insurmountable: insuperable odds. This has not been demonstrated to be the case: please support this assertion or withdraw the comment. I will take this as a tacit withdrawal unless you do provide the actual substantiation. And another ad hominem attack on the messanger  that's the fourth one so far.
Here we go again. Provide the calculations and the assumptions that are made, demonstrate that all the possiblities are known and accounted for: you have to know the possibilities before you can calculate the probabilities. I will take this as a tacit withdrawal unless you do provide the actual substantiation. Pulling a number out of thin air does not make it credible, what makes it credible is the substatiation of the calculation. Prove that this is a valid calculation and does not include the error noted in the OP (original post on the thread).
LOL. What you demonstrate here is a total  and I mean total  misunderstanding of the whole field of probability. Take 50 dice and toss them: what is the probability that they will all end up on a one? Pretty small right? Take everbody in the world and have each person toss the dice: what is the probability that not one will throw all 1's? Is this a different question? Not really: you could toss all 1's on the very first attempt, there is not one thing in the probability calculation that prevents that possiblity from occuring. And this does not include the aspect of how many sides are on the dice  2? 20? Nor does it include the question of what the numbers on the dice are  all 1's? any old number on any side? As you can see the problem becomes completely incalculable if you do not know what all the possibilities are. What is more than clear is that the {creationist\IDist} calculations are nowhere near as complete as they would like to convince themselves (and you) that it is. This means that there is a big glaring error right in the middle of the room: the unexplained exclusions. Denial is like that.
False. Possiblity is there, and that is all that is necessary. In addition, Homo sapiens is not necessarily the end result (my, what absolute arrogance to think so eh?). Tell me: who uncovered all the scientific frauds? Next tell me where any one of them is still being used as a truth in science? Now look at the creatortionista sites that have been debunked and debunked and that still promote their justforthesuckerfrauds. Try "Dr. Dino" for starters. Oh, and by the way ... your argument here is what they call "the argument from incredulity" and it is a logical fallacy that really only demonstrates your inability to understand, and not any failing on the part of the real world: it has already solved the problem, for life exists ... it is here ... Enjoy it. Let's sum the results: ad hominems, unsupported assertions, and an argument from incredulity, ... and not one point refuted. Looks like your ticket didn't win ... care to play our lottery again? ps  the ad hominems don't bother me at all, for they just demonstrate a weak argument: do you really have nothing better than insults? I turn the other cheek. Enjoy. {edited to change beginning now that the identity of the poster is known} This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*25*2005 08:09 AM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017