The problem is that, before concluding anything about probabilities, it is wise to first calculate them correctly.Micaiah said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Does evolution have a chance?
- Thread starter Micaiah
- Start date
Absolutely not. The two probabilities I addressed (that of evolution occurring and that of children being born) are exactly the same in the argument. It adresses the question of search space, which is what is always neglected in creationist arguments about probability. I would very much appreciate a thorough answer to my post in stead of a gloss-over. I think you might see the parallels then.Micaiah said:
Upvote
0
No, it means that the future can hold many different outcomes, but that we cannot predict a specific one. Could go this way, could go that way. No way for us to tell, really.perplexed said:
That's what everyone is trying to tell with dices and children. That the possiblility of one specific outcome is low, does not mean that the process of getting an outcome cannot exist.
That the possibility of getting a specific order in cards or dice is low, does not mean that we cannot draw cards or throw dice or that this is improbable.
That the possiblility of getting a specific child (for example, me) is low, does not mean that it is improbable to get children.
That the possibility of getting a specific evolutionary outcome is low, does not mean that evolution cannot occur or that it is improbable.
The point in all these is calculating odds of one specific outcome, and then claiming that these odds are valid to project on the entire process. It is a fallacious way of reasoning.
Upvote
0
Tomk80 said:
I agree this idea what makes you think I (or anyone else) does not? This valid idea has nothing to with my comments and as far as I can tell nothing to do with this thread. Who used an argument that falsely claims that if you have a process with a vast number of outcomes each with low probability then it is a miracle when you see one of these unlikely events. If probability space consists of a million disjoint events each with probability 1/100000 then
one of these 1 in a million things will happen with proability 1 and should not be considered a miracle.
Upvote
0
Here is the first question again regarding probability. It has been slightly rephrased.
Any takers?
Any takers?
Upvote
0
Just to clarify my position
I think the following argument is wrong but I claim nobody in this thread has made an argument like this so people should stop talking about it
*The argument that is like dice and being born*
a human has 3 billion base pairs each of these base pairs could be 1 of four things so the chance of getting a human without divine intervention is
(1/4) to the power of 3 billion. This is incredibly low so their must have been divine intervention.
I think the following argument is wrong but I claim nobody in this thread has made an argument like this so people should stop talking about it
*The argument that is like dice and being born*
a human has 3 billion base pairs each of these base pairs could be 1 of four things so the chance of getting a human without divine intervention is
(1/4) to the power of 3 billion. This is incredibly low so their must have been divine intervention.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
Micaiah said:
so not only do we have to answer your question, but we have to define what your question actually is?
the simplest interpretation is that you areasking what are the odds of a mutation occuring that would be dealt with in some way under ththeory of evolution - that is a bit redundant. so my quasi random stab in the dark as to what you are asking is this, what are the odds of a beneficial mutation occuring.
that's like asking "what are the odds of me rolling a 4"
Upvote
0
Don't worry. All you need to know is that evolution is impossible as an explanation for human origins.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Micaiah said:
In other words..."I have no idea what I'm talking about but enough hubris and I might get away with it."
Upvote
0
One of the main points in posting the questions was to demonstrate that few people have a detailed knowledge of what the theory of evolution entails. I rest my case.
Upvote
0
Micaiah said:
You failing to provide the context of you questions (or providing it when asked to) and simply making up nonsensical questions and abstractions doesn't reflect on others knowledge of evolution.
If you are expecting us to assume the context of your questions then by that context, any mutation that is inheritable would fullfill your request.
Do you accept that answer in the context of your question?
The only 'requirment' for a mutation in the theory of evolution is that it is inheritable.
Does that match your context for 'requirments' of NDT?
Yes or no. Why or why not?
Upvote
0
I was wrong.
The dice and chance of being born arguments do dispute spetners claim because spetners claim is the same sort of argument.
Here is spetners article for people to laugh at
http://www.wpbc.org.nz/Feature/stats2.asp
The dice and chance of being born arguments do dispute spetners claim because spetners claim is the same sort of argument.
Here is spetners article for people to laugh at
http://www.wpbc.org.nz/Feature/stats2.asp
Upvote
0
trunks2k
Contributor
Micaiah said:
Let's assume for a moment that evolution, abiogenesis, etc is random in the same way that shuffling a deck of cards is (which it isn't).
The probability of this outcome is exactly the same as any other outcome ( 1 in 52!). The problem with this anaolgy is that we have arbitrarily assigned a special meaning to that pattern of cards. Even moreso, we arbitrarily assigned a special meaning to that pattern of cards beforehand.
But that's not what people do with things like evolution. They look at the results, assign it as having a specific special outcome, then try to (and incorrectly) calculate the probability of that outcome. They see it as very low probability and say it couldn't have happened on it's own.
Except that the outcome is likely NOT something special. It's an outcome we assigned to be special after the fact. If we had been a species of intelligent ants living on MArs, we'd be having the same exact discussion. If life never appeared, the universe would just go on without us being here to have this discussion.
Let's work with the deck of cards. Say you shuffle that deck of cards normally, and you come up with a normal, random pattern of cards. What you are doing to evolution, abiogensis, etc, is looking at that pattern of cards after they have been shuffled, assigning it the same special meaning as the ordered cards, and then claiming that the cards must have been rigged. See the problem there?
Upvote
0
Just to elaborate a bit on trunks excellent point...
What you are doing, Micaiah, is pointing out how unlikely it is for things to be just the way they are. And then you are saying that because it is incredibly unlikely, it may as well be impossible.
What you're not acknowledging is that the same is true for every hand you could have been dealt. We don't hop around saying, "the deck is rigged!" when we get any old jumble of cards. And there's no reason to be any more surprised at getting that hand as any other.
Unless, of course, certain combinations are more special than others. And - since we're not playing a particular game of cards - the only thing 'special' about the hand we've been dealt is that it's the hand we've been dealt. The fact cards are labelled with increasing integer values is really a huge red herring.
What you are doing, Micaiah, is pointing out how unlikely it is for things to be just the way they are. And then you are saying that because it is incredibly unlikely, it may as well be impossible.
What you're not acknowledging is that the same is true for every hand you could have been dealt. We don't hop around saying, "the deck is rigged!" when we get any old jumble of cards. And there's no reason to be any more surprised at getting that hand as any other.
Unless, of course, certain combinations are more special than others. And - since we're not playing a particular game of cards - the only thing 'special' about the hand we've been dealt is that it's the hand we've been dealt. The fact cards are labelled with increasing integer values is really a huge red herring.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
