|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Darwinism is wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The problem with such probability calculations is that they are only as good as the assumptions they are based on, and a lot of the relevant factors are so far back in time and many rely on our level of understanding of the processes involved consequently many of the neccessary assumed values are the next best thing to guesses.
It is probably also a good idea to provide a source for claims that you make here. As it stands you could have made those numbers up off the top of your head just while you typed. A source would allow the rest of us to get a better idea of what sort of calculations and assumptions actually were involved in determining those figures. Another common objection to this type of reasoning is that it is so often predicated on the need to produce exactly one evolutionary outcome, i.e. the chances of humans evolving, when in fact evolutionary theory doesn't require humans to evolve to be correct. Our reconstruction of human evolution is in large part based on our understanding of evolutionary theory but the theory itself as a way of understanding how life changes does not require humans to evolve or an understanding of human evolution in particular. It is therefore like calculating the odds of picking out a specific predicted series of 10 cards out of a pack as opposed to just taking any 10 cards. The probability of picking any 10 cards will be the same but once you have picked ten cards then, however unlikely it was previously, that is the outcome you will have. It only becomes incredible if you predict which ten cards you are going to draw beforehand. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Another example I use in this regard is the lottery. We know that someone is going to win the lottery -- that much is fairly certain. Yet, if we look at last month's winner, the odds against her winning was astronomical. Yet that doesn't prove that the lottery doesn't happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bobbins Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 122 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
Other people have stated this but have you the figures to back up the claim 'It is a well known fact that any chance above 1 in 10 to the 42 will never happen'. Who are the people that say this? Probability before the event is irrelevant if the event has already happened; probability after the event is 1. If you want to calculate the odds of everything that does happen be my guest, but your odds of 1 in 10 to the 42 will be replicated often. The odds that I would be 35 tomorrow would indicate that I am a lucky fellow to be here now. But I am. And no extraordinary events are needed to explain this. Even a small chain of quite low odds will result in incredible odds. By the way, do not use the word chance if you want to go into odds, chance indicates anything could happen, odds refer to strict mathematical rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
On to the randomness thing, the chances of a human evolving have been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the two millionth power! Yes, you heard right, that is a huge number If you wish to make such an assertion you MUST by formum guidelines suport it when asked. I am asking now. Please show your work: the input assumption and the calculations on those to arrive at the answer. I suggest that these kind of probability calculations are descret enough that you should do it in a proposed new topic. Do it today and I'll hurry approval before I go away. Hint: I guarentee you that you have been feed mathematical junk for breakfast. Someone is deliberately trying to mislead you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
Or at least provide the website that you probably cribbed that old chestnut from so we can denounce it properly.
ABB edit spelling This message has been edited by Arkansas Banana Boy, 07-27-2005 01:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Exactly, it is that way with 100 year floods. The chance of having a 100 year flood this year is 1/100. The chances of having two-100 year floods this year (before the fact) is 1/100 x 1/100 or 1/10000.
However if two hundred year floods occur this year then after the fact the probability of having the two floods is 1 or 100%. There is also a problem of assigning probabilities to natural events because there are so many different ways of arriving at the same result - in other words, it is not a random process like tossing coins (even coin tossing isn't always truly random). Another way of saying is that each natural event, whether a hurricane, a flood, or a speciation event is unique - the exact circumstances for that event have never occured before and never will again. So in a sense, there is no way to assign a probability and if fact if we were to assign a probibility, we would have to say the probability is zero because the event has never occured before. And yet we know unique events occur. The probability of me as an individual being born was zero, yet here I am. So probabilities are not actually very useful for predicting unique or near unique events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
"Or at least provide the website that you probably cribbed that old chestnut from so we can denounce it properly."
Heh. Good one. Now how am I going to get this coffee out of my keyboard?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mr C,
On to the randomness thing, the chances of a human evolving have been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the two millionth power! I've seen this figure before, & I think you'll find it's the odds of the atoms/molecules spontaneously forming a human from a container with those materials inside it. It is not the odds of a human evolving a la the ToE (Theory of Evolution), & is therefore irrelevant to the ToE. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 07-27-2005 03:59 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Well, well...
PaulK, Wounded King, bobbins, AdminNosy, Arkansas Banana Boy and mark24. It's quite a banquet, isn't it? We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
<< hands out drool towels
Watch the salivating guys. Give the guy a chance to get his feet wet before you hold him under in the deep end. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
AdminAsgara writes: Watch the salivating guys. Give the guy a chance to get his feet wet before you hold him under in the deep end. Are you mixing metaphors, or do you envisage a pool of drool? We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Creationist Inactive Member |
Ok, I'm supposed to back up those numbers, but I don't know exactly where I heard them, I know I have read or heard them at least two places. One might be the PhD. Carl Baugh( I think). I'm sorry I don't know exactly where I got those numbers.
Also, if evolution happend, why are there not trans forms that are alive today? As far as I know, there are no incomplete species in the fossil record, or alive today. How does evolutionary theory explain this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Before anyone puts any further effort into discussions with you I think you should apologize for and retract you probability calculations which you are unable to support. An unsupported assertion is not worth the disk space that it takes to store it.
Meanwhile you need to improve you understanding of what evolutionary biology is all about. Why do you think a transitional would be an "incomplete species "? What would a transitional have to look like and why to you think evolutionary theory suggests that? Have you yet or will you put any effort into this at all? Have you searched this site for "transitional" (we have had a lot of discussion about them already)see: The Definition and Description of a "Transitional" Would it be possible to recognize a transitional change at the time it was happening? and others If you continue to post at this level you will lose any opportunity to continue to post in the science side forums. Make your posts with more care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024