Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument

You sank this low to deny what you said yourself? Better go back to school.

Your inability to answer basic probability questions is noted.

I see that Mike the Wiz opened this thread then pissed off.
I also see that we fell for it. Again.

Just as I predicted in Message 511.

Probabilities are always below 1. You don't even understand that. Your whole example is laughable.And learn to make useful predictions ahead of time. In science, hypotheses are usually rejected below 0.05 probability. In some cases, we can go lower to 0.01 or in rare cases perhaps 0.001.You are accepting theories with probabilities billions upon billion times lower. You should not be discussing science. You are unqualified!

If you deny that the sequences you posted, are equally likely, under assumption of total randomness of each base, then you are beyond help. And certainly not worth my time.

All sequences with length between 1000 and 1100 are just all sequences that have such length. You need further specification? Have you even ever been to school?

I did not say that it was not true. Accorring to the source AZPaul3 posted, it is not true. I realize that one needs to make certain assumptions to simplify and do useful calculations. So this wasn't an attack on you at all. Sorry if it seemed that way.I just wanted to show AZPaul3 the irony, that he intended to attack creationists fallacies, right after you used the same assumption that his source considers to be a fallacy.

You are way behind. Try to keep up.

You only call it laughable because you can't address it. Ding Ding Ding Ding. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!This is exactly what you and other ID/creationists ARE NOT DOING. All you are doing is looking at sequences once they are here instead of predicting their emergence ahead of time. This is the whole problem with the ID/creationist argument. This is the Sharpshooter fallacy. If what you claim is true then I shouldn't be able to shuffle a deck of cards because of the highly improbable outcome. I am a scientist with multiple peer reviewed papers. I have been working as a molecular biologist for 26 years.You don't know even what science is. You don't know what a theory is. You don't know what evidence is. And you sure don't know how probabilities work.

All sequences are equally likely in a random sequence. That's what I have been saying for a long time now.The very act of producing a random sequence means we will have produced a highly improbable outcome. Wouldn't you agree?

If you put random characters on paper, with five characters, it may happen once so often that you get a meaningful word or short sentence. With twenty characters, it's generally less likely to get a full meaningful sentence. Do you have any reason or evidence to support the idea of more useful sequences at greater lengths, compared to the total number of possible arrangements?

I know better than you, how probabilities work.

quote:

---

You are way behind. Try to keep up.

---

And yet I am still ahead of you. You haven’t produced anything like a valid argument in this thread, let alone got to doing the math.

That was my point exactly. That you made the assumption of equal probability. Which for practical purposes, is a valid assuption. Don't get me wrong. Just that in AZPaul3 books, you are committing some fallacy, if you apply it to genetic sequences or protein sequences.