Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

Dredge has still not grasped the basics of probability: As has been pointed out to him very clearly, probability cannot be less than zero, and yet still he persists.Kleinman must be so proud to have Dredge on his side.

In your popular parochial non-intellectual definitions that is correct. You can define your layman's terms anyway makes you happy.Just like infinities math contains a lot of concepts that science sees quite differently. Whether you are charting a discrete or continuous series you can asymptote to "impossible" as much as you want. You never get there. It doesn't exist on the chart.You might say it is impossible to asymptote to impossible.

A bunch of years ago the state of Texas added two additional numbers to their lotto choices. Now you could select numbers 51 and 52 in your lotto mix. The state lotto commission blanketed the state with ads showing two dancing ping-pong balls with “51” and “52” on them. The graphics and the voice over were about how great the lotto had become with “two more chances to win!”. It was aimed at folks like you, wasn't it.That sure would help get you to 1000 wins faster, right?

Dredge:

---

I referred to the odds of the same person winning the lottery 1000 times in a row.

AZPaul3:

---

I didn't check your math because, like Kleinman's math, it's useless.
​
But I grant the point that in your simple pop-culture anti-science vernacular such a thing is "statistically impossible", though in fact it is possible just not at all probable.

---

---

Is Dredge now supposed to explain to you the multiplication rule for computing the joint probability of random events? There are many websites and books that can show novices and laymen how to do that math.
Probability Multiplication Rule

quote:

---

When the probability of multiple events happening together knowing the probability of individual events needs to be calculated, the multiplication rule can be made use of. There exist two types of multiplication rules namely general and specific. Before heading towards the multiplication rules, the definitions of independent and dependent events need to be understood.

​

Independent events: If the happening of one particular event has no influence on the probability of another event, it is termed independent events. For instance, in a trial of flipping an unbiased coin, the outcome of heads doesn’t affect getting heads again on the succeeding flip.

​

Dependent events: If the happening of one particular event has an influence on the probability of another event, it is termed dependent events. For example, drawing a king from a standard deck of cards without replacement causes the probability of drawing the succeeding king to decrease.

---

And the editors and peer-reviewers at Statistics in Medicine are experts in probability theory and they thought well enough of my math to publish it. Have you noticed that Taq and Tany have not argued that my math is wrong? Taq argued that the math I've presented for DNA evolution does not include recombination which is correct. That's because they are different genetic processes and if you want to do that math correctly, you must simultaneously superimpose the mathematics of DNA evolution, biological competition, and recombination. Tany seems to think ERVs will change this math but he doesn't explain how. Even nwr, your resident mathematician doesn't say where I've done my math incorrectly. Of course, nwr doesn't do the mathematics of biology.And, AZPaul3, you need to learn the difference between "probability theory" and "statistics", they are not the same thing. Your anger and derision are not helping you learn.

dwise1:

---

But you still have not presented your math model!
​
Without the proper math model for the system you're examining, all you're doing is throwing meaningless numbers around randomly.
​
WHAT IS THE MATH MODEL FOR YOUR "PROBABILITY CALCULATIONS"?
​
Without a model, your numbers are absolutely meaningless.
​
Instead, you should study up on research in abiogenesis. With the knowledge that you will gain you will be able to formulate a math model.

---

You are another one whose anger and derision is impairing your ability to learn. What Dredge is talking about is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Is it Dredge's job to teach you introductory probability theory? I was taught the subject in elementary school, 5th grade, Mrs. Spear was my teacher. Here's one of the many examples from web that will teach you how to do this computation.
Probability Multiplication Rule

quote:

---

When the probability of multiple events happening together knowing the probability of individual events needs to be calculated, the multiplication rule can be made use of. There exist two types of multiplication rules namely general and specific. Before heading towards the multiplication rules, the definitions of independent and dependent events need to be understood.

​

Independent events: If the happening of one particular event has no influence on the probability of another event, it is termed independent events. For instance, in a trial of flipping an unbiased coin, the outcome of heads doesn’t affect getting heads again on the succeeding flip.

​

Dependent events: If the happening of one particular event has an influence on the probability of another event, it is termed dependent events. For example, drawing a king from a standard deck of cards without replacement causes the probability of drawing the succeeding king to decrease.

---

That's your cue to call me "fool" and "idiot" in order to demonstrate your sparkling debating skills.I wonder if Tany is going to continue with his argument about ERVs or take Taq's exit.

vimesey:

---

As has been pointed out to him very clearly, probability cannot be less than zero, and yet still he persists.
​
Kleinman must be so proud to have Dredge on his side.

---

Not everyone on this forum has knowledge of introductory probability theory let alone experts on the subject. But I do welcome any correction or criticism of the math and/or physics that I've presented. Any time you are ready vimesey, have a go at it.

From your reply to dwise1: From your reply to me (re Dredge): You've just contradicted yourself in two messages, posted within 9 minutes of each other. Gotta be a record.

Kleinman:

---

What Dredge is talking about is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Is it Dredge's job to teach you introductory probability theory?

vimesey:

---

From your reply to me (re Dredge):

Kleinman:

---

Not everyone on this forum has knowledge of introductory probability theory let alone experts on the subject.

vimesey:

---

You've just contradicted yourself in two messages, posted within 9 minutes of each other. Gotta be a record.

---

---

---

---

Simply brilliant! No wonder the sun is setting on the British Empire. Are you going to comment on the physics and/or the mathematics I've presented or limit your comments to imagined contradictions?

Kleinman will now show us the math on the fall of the British Empire and the physics and/or the mathematics that limit comments to imagined contradictions.I can't wait to learn from him.

Well, self-professed hyper-genius MrIntelligentDesign's "new ID" is so superior because its probability can be as high as five. That's five times higher than puny normal math's maximum probability of a mere "one".Like they say: "You can always tell a creationist; you just cannot tell him anything."They are so glad to have found each other. I would imagine that they were both finding it impossible to have a circle jerk all alone.

Actually, that is bullshit. Taq and Tany both argued that your math is incorrect when you try to apply it to anything beyond the simplest lifeforms in 3 experiments and even there it is questionable to other math guys and apparently the people executing the experiments.And no, Tany is not going to bother saying anything more about ERVs, since you are unable to explain the patterns of ERVs seen in the genomes of modern humans and chimps. All those other questions have nothing to do with the patterns that appear in both species' genomes and are just deflections, AKA a Gish Gallop. If you can't understand the Wikipedia article about ERVs, tough. Your math is wrong and no I am not going to perform for you - your math is wrong...your math is wrong!!!And I don't know about Taq, but I suspect his reason for stopping is your style and lack of saying anything interesting. Your argument boils down to nothing but repeatedly mischaracterizing our arguments and endless repetitions of insults, so carry on.

Rounding errors...He rounded Pi up and the speed of light down.

No ... it would take longer to get to 1000 wins, since the probability of drawing, say 6, correct balls from a total of 52 balls is less than drawing 6 correct balls from a total of 50 balls.The probability of drawing 6 correct balls from 50 balls is (1/50)×(1/49)×(1/48)×(1/47)×(1/46)×(1/45)
or
1 in 1.14413×10¹⁰.The probability of drawing 6 correct balls from 52 balls
is (1/52)×(1/51)×(1/50)×(1/49)×(1/48)×(1/47)
or
1 in 1.46581×10¹⁰

Not only isP (natural abiogenesis) < 0,butP (supernatural abiogenesis) > 1.But as I told you before, you can't understand the mathematics of God bcoz you're an atheist. Your natural laws and maths don't apply to the supernatural. Oh yeah ... my IQ is 9, whereas the redoubtable Kleinman's IQ would be 160+.

dwise1 is a sad case ... pathologically obsessed with creationists and theists. Not even his psychiatrist can help him.