I am new to EvC Forum, but not new to the debate. I have an idea for an interesting discussion that, in my opinion, is deserving from both viewpoints.
I have seen many arguments which invoke some form of probabilistic reasoning to back a viewpoint.
Example 1: This takes place over tens of millions of years, and is therefore possible (implying a number of trials over which random mutations may operate)
Example 2: The odds of a jawless fish becoming "jawed", with fully operating nerves, etc., are found to be 1:10^some big number, and is therefore not possible
Each of these seem reasonable on the surface, and they are repeated by camp residents over and over. However, there are a number of basic flaws.
There is a vast difference in this discussion between our ability to model something _a priori_, based on first principles (thinking about a six-sided die), and our ability to model a process _a posterior_, based on observations of actual data, preferable of several different experiments (repeatedly rolling that die). Is the die loaded? Does it prefer certain long-term arrangements (is it non-random?)
Since with the evolutionary discussion points, we have, at best, inferential supposition, neither modeling techniques is even marginally well founded. We have some localized data, but certainly not enough to calculate something as momentous as whether or not life could evolve spontaneously.
It would seem then, that we should examine whether any of the probabilistic arguments are even valid at all, mathematically speaking. This is much more difficult than almost all folks consider.
What say ye, people of the discussion?