Probability-based arguments

quote:

---

Example 1: This takes place over tens of millions of years, and is therefore possible (implying a number of trials over which random mutations may operate)
Example 2: The odds of a jawless fish becoming "jawed", with fully operating nerves, etc., are found to be 1:10^some big number, and is therefore not possible

---

As they stand both arguments are wrong, and I wouldn't call either "probability-based". The first is not completely without merit - it is valid to point out that the timescales are relevant to any attempt to calculate the probability, giving more time for the needed variations to appear and for natural selection to act on them.The second is worse - it is dishonest, since it is only an argument from personal incredulity dressed up with a worthless guess at the probability. (It might be possible to make a very rough estimate of the correct figure, but it would be a lot of work and require some very detailed knowledge - I personally doubt that it would be worth attempting).

quote:

---

As far as examples of how the "millions of years" response is used, actually, I tend to see that in popular science quite regularly.

---

I very much doubt that. I've never seen it.And Behe's argument is very weak. He only deals with the indirect routes to evolving irreducible complexity by writing them off as "improbable". Yet decades earlier, Mueller had predicted that evolution would produce irreducible complexity.In the Dover case Behe wrote off the work on the evolution of the immune system because it wasn't detailed to a point that is completely impractical.The question is, why bother with probability-based arguments at all, when we have no adequate basis for the calculations ?

quote:

---

OK, i will accept the challenge. Give me accessible references for evolution and I will see if they use the "millions of years" terminology.

---

I don't have to give you references. YOU have to provide them since YOU claim that they exist.Also it is not a matter of terminology. You need to back up your claim that this argument is frequently used:

quote:

---

Keep in mind that I am a supporter - I am doing this to kill this ridiculous argument.

---

The evidence suggests that you are falsely claiming that popular science books often use a bad argument. That's not something a supporter would do.

quote:

---

I was suggesting that you provide acceptable publications and I will find the references. It was an attempt to avoid the situation of providing references which you would claim are not credible because of source quality.

---

I note that you are ignoring the other important point. That it is not terminology that is of concern, but of the specific argument you refer to.And it is still up to you to provide the sources that you claim use this argument. It seems a little odd for you suddenly be concerned that you may have been relying on "low quality" sources. (The more so. given the number of popular books on evolution written by scientists who have actually worked on evolution). Why are you so reluctant to actually give real examples ?