RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 191 of 562 (92832)
03-16-2004 9:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 190 by DNAunion
03-08-2004 12:58 AM
|
|
Re: Probability silliness
The problem with the whole issue of any "proof" by using mathematics, is that the mathematics is just a model of reality with no direct link to the reality. This means that a mathematical model is only as good as it continues to make valid predictions. Take weather forecasting: it breaks down after a few days. This means it has limited usefulness even when the predictions are validated. The corollary is that when a model does not predict what really [is happening \ has happened] that it is the model that must be discarded, rather than reality. The rational person will look at the assumptions built into the mathematical model to see if there are any that do not reflect reality and then try to make adjustments to those assumptions to be closer to reality. Creatortionistas(*), though, are not looking for modeling reality, but for modeling errors: this means that the more errors built in that look good on the surface the more it serves their purpose. This is usually accomplished by making the model as simple as possible: assemble [X] molecule from scratch in one step, and then calculate the probability of it happening in precisely that fashion. Ignoring the point that this does not model the way molecules are assembled in organic systems (a system that vastly reduces the actual possibilities that would be included in a proper scientific calculation, and which has already been addressed) there is another glaring problem with this kind of model: there is no effort made to eliminate similar molecules that would function in the same manner or even in one barely good enough for survival. One of the classics is hemoglobin ... but there are currently some 40 major different kinds of hemoglobin currently existing, including a blue substance in the blood of horseshoe crabs that is quite different from human hemoglobin. There are also mutations, variations in the hemoglobin molecule in people all over the world -- sickle cell anemia is a well known variation. Each of those variations in all the living creatures covering this planet is a working molecule, and the numbers of those known viable variations has not been even attempted to be calculated to "correct" the hemoglobin probability calculation. This would also have to be done for all dead creatures that ever once lived, and even then it would not approach calculating how many possible variations might work. What this means is that even if it were a matter of assembling a working molecule all in one go, the real world probability is not ONE out of [whatever fantastic number], but [an equally fantastic number] out of the [whatever fantastic number]. The difference here is that while it is difficult to predict which one of 10 million tickets in a lottery will win the lottery, we can be pretty sure that one of the tickets will win. You could have 10 million alternate universes where each ticket wins in each one ... each ticket could be a winner and look back at calculating the odds that it would win and ignore the fact that the lottery doesn't care which tickets wins. A final note: Once something has happened the probability of it has defaulted to 1: it can't unhappen. Enjoy (*) -- Creatortionistas is a term I use for people who willingly and knowingly lie or misrepresent facts to influence or delude the gullible and ignorant and continue to do so even after the errors have been demonstrated, in some cases numerous times. Paluxy footprints come to mind ... and certainly these bogus probability calculations qualify as well.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 190 by DNAunion, posted 03-08-2004 12:58 AM | | DNAunion has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2