Math Refutes Evolution??

Math doesn't seem very effective against refuting man's theories. When the math doesn't fit with the theory they will always put in fudge factors. Big bang is a good example as dark energy and dark matter is a 90% fudge factor added just to make the math work with the theory. When evolutionist come to a huge math hurdle they just add in the "god of incredible dumb luck" to solve their problem.
Before someone can win a lottery you got to first prove there is a real lottery.

I agree with Tinker Grey. The actual probability of getting exactly 500 heads out of 1,000 coin tosses is a pathetic 0.0252, or approximately 2.5%. What does change as you increase the sample size is that the standard deviation decreases. To explain it fully would really derail my post but to give a quantitative idea: the probability of getting 3 heads or less out of 10 coin throws is 0.172, while the probability of getting 300 heads or less out of 1000 coin throws (the same proportion) is essentially zero, given that the coin is fair.

And of course you should expect to hear me Busterdog. I am a math dude. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Now, essentially what we have is an observation with two competing hypotheses:

Observation: Mankind exists.

Hypothesis 1. Mankind was evolved.
Hypothesis 2. Mankind was not evolved.

Now a bit of jargon. P(O|H) means the probability of getting event O, assuming hypothesis H. As an example, the probability that the scientists calculated was (if accurate) P(O|H1), where O is the observation and H1 is the hypothesis: given that evolution happened, what is the probability of mankind emerging? On the other hand, P(O|H2) is very nearly 1: if mankind was designed, then the probability of mankind emerging is almost certain (if not fully so).

But, is P(O|H1) what we are looking for as evidence of evolution? No: what we need is P(H1|O). You don't start by assuming that evolution happened, and then figure out what the odds of man coming about are. You do the reverse, and to do that we need Bayesian probability modeling, which I will demonstrate below.

Here's an analogy. I enter a lottery with 10 million competitors. I win. Someone accuses me of having an insider selecting my name.

Observation: I won. (I love my examples.)

Hypothesis 1: I was selected at random.
Hypothesis 2: An insider chose my name non-randomly.

Now, P(O|H1) is one in 10 million. P(O|H2) is 1. So can we stop here and conclude that every single lottery winner has won because of insiders? That would be extremely silly, and it's the same sort of error people make when they reject evolution on "improbability" arguments. For what does Bayes' theorem state?

P(H|O) = P(O|H) * P(H) / P(O)

According to Bayes' theorem therefore, we also need the likelihood of the hypotheses and the likelihood of the observation (without any prior information). In the lottery example, I can know that the probability of having an insider is very small - say, 1 in a trillion. Plug that in, and suddenly the probability that there was an insider (based on my winnings) becomes really small.

How does that work? I backtrack to an even more intuitive example. I have two boxes. Box A contains one white ball and nine red balls. Box B contains nine white balls and one red ball. I choose a box and pull out a ball: it is white. What is the probability that I chose box A?

Let W = the event of pulling out a white ball, R = the event of pulling out a red ball, A = the event of choosing box A, B = the event of choosing box B. You want to know P(A|W) : given that I chose a white ball, what are the chances that I chose box A? Using Bayes' formula:

P(A|W) = P(W|A) * P(A) / P(W)

Now, P(W|A) - the chance of getting a white ball, given that I choose box A - is only 0.1. And P(W) is 0.5 (since there are 10 white balls and 10 red balls, if we completely ignore the boxes). So what is P(A)? Suppose I tell you that I chose the boxes at random. Then P(A) is half, and P(B) is half. Then P(A|W) is only 0.1 - which makes sense; since A has much less white balls, it has a much smaller chance of having been my box. Suppose, on the other hand, I tell you straight out that I misplaced box B last week and so only have box A to choose from. Then P(A) = 1, P(W) = 0.1 (since there is only one box) and P(A|W) is 1, which makes sense.

See? In terms of the probabilities above, the probability that given humans, evolution happened is:

P(H1|O) = P(O|H1) * P(H1) / P(O)

Now the question is, what is the probability, given no other information, that evolution happened? If that probability is 1 - in other words, if we have observed evolution - then as in the example above P(H1|O) is also going to be 1, no matter how low P(O|H1) is. In the end, there is no way around the evidence. If the evidence says that evolution happened, then it did happen, no matter how improbable the emergence of mankind is given that evolution happened.

Smidlee said:

Math doesn't seem very effective against refuting man's theories. When the math doesn't fit with the theory they will always put in fudge factors. Big bang is a good example as dark energy and dark matter is a 90% fudge factor added just to make the math work with the theory. When evolutionist come to a huge math hurdle they just add in the "god of incredible dumb luck" to solve their problem.
Before someone can win a lottery you got to first prove there is a real lottery.

Click to expand...

Friend, dark matter has been observed.

busterdog said:

Are you saying a much higher number of lifeforms should be possible? That is a very interesting argument.

If randomness were truly the process of evolution and if the math proposed were to work at all, why would you have the rather limited number of lifeforms that we do have? Why do we have animals with single notochords, rather than groups of three or both dorsal and ventral spines? Why aren't there six legged mammals? Why aren't there land sponges? Or spongebobs (that would be a compelling argument for atheists indeed!)?

Click to expand...

Because evolution isn't random. It is directed by natural selection.

You would need an exact molecular model and some computer from the future to calculate useful numbers alone for chemical evolution.

Math doesn't seem very effective against refuting man's theories. When the math doesn't fit with the theory they will always put in fudge factors. Big bang is a good example as dark energy and dark matter is a 90% fudge factor added just to make the math work with the theory.

Click to expand...

The math is just a formal description of the theory, or just simple: The math represents the theory. I don't know much about astronomy, but big bang doesn't ground on the existence of dark matter.
What you mean is that the data doesn't support the math, some galaxies ain't moving the way they should be.
When a theory works good it isn't thrown away when some data doesn't fit, maybe the theory is partly wrong and/or the data is incomplete.
But there is evidence that dark matter exists, so there is no need to abandon standard astronomy.

And no, there is no conspiracy of scientists hiding data or suppressing alternate theories, other explanations are always welcome. They only have to be consistent with the data ... (so YEC's ruled out)

When evolutionist come to a huge math hurdle they just add in the "god of incredible dumb luck" to solve their problem.

Click to expand...

I think TEs should have no problems with huge probabilities since we all believe god shaped the laws of nature in such a way that solar dust("all are of the dust"Ecc3:20)
formed a blue planet in a nice solar system that was habitable for chemical evolution and gave birth to complex self-replicating systems.
Huge numbers are always showing the infinite power of god - so evolution is more stunning and shows the glory of god more than a boring 6*24h creation ...

Thanks, shernren, you said it much better than I.

Is there an easier way to compute that than the formula I gave? (If it is correct at all). You can PM me to keep this thread on track.

Thanks again.

New Thread

shernren said:

Friend, dark matter has been observed.

Click to expand...

Nah; it's just "Lucy" again trying to see over the grass.

Has no one here heard the birthday function when regarding probability, then?

Also, I suspect the fact that it has happened rather disproves the probability that it can't. Take, if you will, every single other possible outcome over those 4 billion years. I mean every single outcome that life could have possible formed into. The chance of it forming into one of those probabilities is also whatever made-up number was quoted. We've simply picked one.

(No analogies were harmed in the making of this production.)

It's been a bloody night in Probability-Land. A man has been found dead in a side alley, his skull crushed in, the only clue being a leg of lamb left beside his prone body. Video footage shows a man walking into the side alley with a frozen leg of lamb in his hand, and walking out of that alley without that leg. There is enough video footage to identify the man as a Charlie Darwin. Charlie is brought in to police custody and pleads innocent. His lawyer takes an unusual defense strategy:

"Ladies and gentlemen, what is the probability that Charlie Darwin would have done it? If you didn't know, Charlie is a metalworker by profession. In his workshop he has over a hundred deadly implements that he could have used to kill our poor unnamed victim. He could have cut him open with a buzzsaw, or seared his neck off with a propane torch, or drilled through his stomach, or plain bludgeoned him to death with a spanner. What are the chances that he would have done it with a frozen leg of lamb? I've even brought in a professional statistician and he agrees with me that given what we know of Charlie's workshop and methods, the probability of him using a leg of lamb as the lethal weapon, instead of any of his lab implements, is 1 in 10 to the power of 2 trillion. That's an astronomically small number. Why, that's the probability that you can evolve a human from random chance!

"Now, ladies and gentlemen, look over here at Jamie de Sign. He's a famous international chef. Furthermore, he gets very angry when he sees food being frozen instead of used fresh. If he were to murder someone, it's entirely conceivable that he'd do it over a piece of frozen food. In fact, he's even made press statements that 'If I ever saw a frozen leg of lamb I'd be angry enough to thump someone with it!' My professional statistician agrees that the probability of Jamie de Sign killing someone with a leg of lamb, instead of anything else, is most nearly 1.

"Therefore everyone here is prosecuting the wrong man. Charlie Darwin isn't the prime suspect. Jamie de Sign is!"

There is a big hubbub in the court, because nobody has ever mounted a statistical defense of their client before, and half the court doesn't understand what is going on. But it's reasonable, right? Given the odds it clearly couldn't be Charlie.

Then the prosecution rises:

"Indeed the probability that Charlie would have done it with a leg of lamb is minuscule. But the defense has gone off its rockers in relying on that. We are not here to discuss whether, given that Charlie did it, he would have done it with a leg of lamb or not. We are here to discuss whether, given that it was done with a leg of lamb, and all other data, it was done by Charlie, or by someone else.

"The probability of de Sign being there is nearly 0, for he was at a party at the time with 20 witnesses, as is the probability of anyone else being there, for the video footage shows only the victim entering the side-alley 2 minutes after Charlie, and nobody else entering or leaving besides Charlie for half an hour. The probability of Charlie being there is nearly 1. The probability that Charlie did it as opposed to anyone else is that much greater. It doesn't matter that Charlie had a very small probability of doing it with a leg of lamb, for the question at hand is not the probability of Charlie doing it with a leg of lamb but simply the probability of Charlie doing it."

Charlie hung two weeks later for the murder.