|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
There may be many bulls eyes, but in the large space of all possible sequencies of genes, it's really nothing. Genes have a few hundred upto two million bases.
For 100 bases, there are already more than 10^60 possible sequences. How many of these would be usefull? And this is for the low count. For 200 bases, the number of possible sequences is already more than the estimated number of atoms in the entire universe. For larger genes, the space grows exponentially. Do you think the number of useful sequences grows just as fast? Very unlikely, I'd say.With 400 bases, the space is already as large as if every atom was a universe itself. And we are still at the very low end of short genes. If anybody is not understanding probability, it's evolutionists. Do the math and evolutionists are playing a losing game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Only simple minded plebs, believe that the argument has been refuted.
If anybody assumed that sequences were equally likely, it's Taq, with his four coin example. Even if 99.99% of the bad sequences had zero chance of occuring, it solves nothing! You have such poor concept of numbers LOL!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
I challenged it, but it was above your level to comprehend, apparently. I made two concrete points and all you could do is ignore, stick your head in the sand and pretend that your refutation still has any merit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Hahah, you did not even understand the two points. You are just trolling now, as your arguments have failed you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Wow, do you even know which two points was referring to? I guess not. You keep failing in every topic haha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Your source talks about the "fallacy" of assuming that all sequences are equally likely. You must have missed that Taq is the one using this assumption in his examples. And even if many sequences were less likely than others, say 99.99% of bad ones were disregarded completely even, just to steel man your argument, it still would not be of much significant help in the vast space of possible sequences.
And the space of gene sequences of known lengths is well defined. You have refuted nothing. But it's cute that you amateurs think you have lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
You sank this low to deny what you said yourself? Better go back to school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
Probabilities are always below 1. You don't even understand that. Your whole example is laughable.
And learn to make useful predictions ahead of time. In science, hypotheses are usually rejected below 0.05 probability. In some cases, we can go lower to 0.01 or in rare cases perhaps 0.001. You are accepting theories with probabilities billions upon billion times lower. You should not be discussing science. You are unqualified!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
If you deny that the sequences you posted, are equally likely, under assumption of total randomness of each base, then you are beyond help. And certainly not worth my time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
All sequences with length between 1000 and 1100 are just all sequences that have such length. You need further specification? Have you even ever been to school?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
I did not say that it was not true. Accorring to the source AZPaul3 posted, it is not true. I realize that one needs to make certain assumptions to simplify and do useful calculations. So this wasn't an attack on you at all. Sorry if it seemed that way.
I just wanted to show AZPaul3 the irony, that he intended to attack creationists fallacies, right after you used the same assumption that his source considers to be a fallacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
You are way behind. Try to keep up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
If you put random characters on paper, with five characters, it may happen once so often that you get a meaningful word or short sentence. With twenty characters, it's generally less likely to get a full meaningful sentence. Do you have any reason or evidence to support the idea of more useful sequences at greater lengths, compared to the total number of possible arrangements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
I know better than you, how probabilities work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 473 Joined: |
That was my point exactly. That you made the assumption of equal probability. Which for practical purposes, is a valid assuption. Don't get me wrong. Just that in AZPaul3 books, you are committing some fallacy, if you apply it to genetic sequences or protein sequences.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024