Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,755 Year: 4,012/9,624 Month: 883/974 Week: 210/286 Day: 17/109 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 104 of 149 (533154)
10-29-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kaichos Man
10-29-2009 2:20 AM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
Evolution doesn't have to achieve anything. That's why the overwhelming probability is that it will achieve nothing.
Now children, can we all spell non sequitur?
Let's say evolution has 1000 base pairs to play with. It can do anything it likes with them. There are 41000 possible combinations. One of them will produce an enzyme. The other (41000)-1 will produce nothing useful.
Well, that's good of you to state this as a fact - but you know, I'd like some evidence that your 41000-1 will produce nothing useful 'cos I have this feeling that you're making this up as you go along...
What is the probable result?
That Kaichos Man really doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 2:20 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 6:48 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 108 of 149 (533180)
10-29-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Kaichos Man
10-29-2009 6:48 AM


Re: Joe Thornton (and creationist targets).
It's really not that hard.
No, I understand your probablity. Having taught enough maths/physics undergrads probablity theory, that would be expected of me
You claimed that 41000-20,000 different combinations of 1000 bp would not produce *anything*. That is very very wrong...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 6:48 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 146 of 149 (534364)
11-07-2009 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kaichos Man
11-07-2009 7:33 AM


Re: Weasel redux
Is a neat way of side-stepping Irreducible Complexity... No wonder Tricky Dicky used an abstract model for that.
Yeah, Richard is amazingly tricky, given that he published the Weasal program in 1986, whilst Behe was working on his idiotic IC in the 90s, not appreciating that IC had been discussed for decades in the context of it being a prediction of the ToE I'm sorry KM, but don't worry - we're laughing at you, not with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-07-2009 7:33 AM Kaichos Man 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