The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution

It does matter, especially when something is proven fact in the face of how improbable it seemed to be. Like with CS's example of the calcium atoms. He didn't say plausibility doesn't really matter. What he said was probability in the case of the calcium atoms didn't really matter. The calcium atoms are in his arm bone and originated in a star in spite of how improbable that may be.- Oni

Yes, when you know ALL the details it's not so improbable any more is it?I believe that was CS's point. Of course there is. No one is saying there isn't a reason. It does in the general study of biology, to make predictions, etc. But, not in the sense that something couldn't have happened just because it seems improbable.- Oni

Maybe you just don't know all the details... I would imagine there would be another mechanism proposed to replace the one demonstrated not to work, like with Newton/Einstein physics. There may simply be not enough known about how the mechanism works. I mean, even Newton didn't understand everything about the nature of how the planets moved and said god had to be involved somehow. Then along came Einstein, and well, the rest is history.However improbable it may have seemed to a genius like Newton, Einstein showed just how easy it worked with new equations.If an particular improbability leads one to throwing their hands up and saying "It had to be God" then said person has not done enough work to understand whatever it is they're looking into.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You can research whatever you want to research. If you feel convergent evolution is a better explanation than common ancestry knock yourself out. We'll see you at the end of your study and your peers will review it. I'm sure if you prove convergent evolution vs common ancesrty there's all kinds of rewards nerds will give you.What is the consensus so far? Not you, specifically, that I know of. At least not in this thread. But some will use improbability to support intelligent design or some other nonsense. Then improbability is irrelevant.- Oni

Nothing else? Really? That depends on WHO is making that determination and what they're using as evidence to reach that verdict. I mean, ALL hypothesis have a level of doubt surrounding them. That's why they're just a hypothesis. But just saying "it's improbable" doesn't suffice, because, with every hypothesis, not all the details are known. Hypothesis by definition aren't complete theories, so improbability isn't relevant. We don't have all the details yet, like in my example of Newton, so it may seem improbable for now but not once we have all the details.Remember the calcium atom ending up in CS's arm? How improbable would that seem had solar fusion being a vaguely understood hypothesis? Highly improbable! But, as you detailed, not so much once we figured it all out.- Oni

You may not be understanding me... Even if you detail why something is improbable, you may simply lack all the information and are drawing the wrong conclusion. You've missed the point.How improbable something may seem is not relevant. However, of course I recognize that certain aspects of science use statitics and probability to determine certain factors.But that has nothing to do with the points being made to you.- Oni

When we don't yet have a theroy and are meerly trying to compose different hypothesis. Maybe I'm not being clear enough.Let's look at CS's example of solar fusion leading to calcium in his bones. Before a workable theory of solar fusion, gravity, planet formation, and knowledge of chemistry this would have seemed highly improbable.But that improbability was irrelevant. The fact is, solar fusion and the cosmic explosions of one specific star lead to the calcium found in one persons (CS's) right arm (for example).And that improbability would have lead to hypothesis of intelligent design and gods and all sorts of nonsense.- Oni