Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument

quote:

---

If anybody is not understanding probability, it's evolutionists. Do the math and evolutionists are playing a losing game.

---

Really? Let’s see you do the math.First formulate your argument. If that is valid we can identify the correct calculation. When you’ve got that right, you can do the math.

quote:

---

You are way behind. Try to keep up.

---

And yet I am still ahead of you. You haven’t produced anything like a valid argument in this thread, let alone got to doing the math.

quote:

---

And what have you produced?

---

A challenge that you seem incapable of meeting - despite your confident assertion.

quote:

---

Easy to ignore what you don't understand, isn't it?

---

I don’t find it to be so, but you seem to.

quote:

---

You should learn about probability space. Then read again what I wrote

---

I’m sure that I know at least as much as you. Enough to see that you haven’t produced any argument that could even lead to relevant calculations.Are you going to try? Or are you just going to stick with empty bluster?

quote:

---

Empty claims from the arrogant evolutionist who produced not a single useful argument.

---

Of course, all I am doing is seeing if you can back up your claims with something more than arrogant bluster.You talk about probability spaces, but you haven’t defined one, let alone a relevant probability space. So we still haven’t seen any relevant math from you at all.

quote:

---

I done so multiple times

---

No, you have not. You haven’t clearly defined even one of the three parameters of a probability space.

quote:

---

Your ignorance and amateuristic level is your problem.

---

The problem is your “ignorance and amateuristic level” - and that is not my problem at all. If you actually manage to define a probability space you will find that I am quite able to discuss it. And it’s relevance to the question of evolution.

quote:

---

I specified the length of gene sequences to be a few hundred upto 2 million. What part of that do you not understand? In other examples, I specified lengths as well.

---

And? Even if that is going to be your sample space - and I think it a bad choice - there are still the event space and the probability function to define,To explain why gene sequence is a bad choice for sample space, consider this: Why would specific gene sequences matter? Surely the issue is what they do - and that is dependent on the context provided by other genes and the environment, and can be realised in multiple different sequences. Dembski’s concept of specification may be flawed but it is far better than looking at raw events as others have pointed out,

quote:

---

Do you know which bases a gene consists of? Do you need people to spell everything out for you?

---

I need you to explain your argument - since you seem incredibly reluctant to actually do it - and if it involves a probability space you need to define that - which you still haven’t come close to doing.

quote:

---

So no, you are not capable of discussing these things you so poorly understand.

---

Apparently I understand them better than you, and that is another problem for you. You can’t baffle me with bullshit if I know enough to see that you are bullshitting.

quote:

---

If we saw that existing books fit into a nested hierarchy we would suspect that they share a common ancestor. We could also watch books reproduce, and see what pattern of substitutions occur in each generation.

---

To an extent that is the case - manuscripts copied by hand are an example of imperfect reproduction. I don’t think we see anything like as good a nested hierarchy as in the case of life, but an element of it is there.Related to that is the use of deliberate errors to detect plagiarism, in maps, for instance. That might be compared to the evidence from ERVs.

quote:

---

If each manuscript was copied from the previous copy it could be possible to trace ancestry and reconstruct the original, given there are enough branching lineages. In the same way, it is possible to reconstruct much of the ape common ancestral genome by comparing the genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans (and gibbons if you want to include them)

---

If. I believe that what we can do is quite limited. There was continuous copying - because books wear out. And hand-copied books are nowhere as numerous as living creatures.

Ah, but the effort of copying largely stopped when printing came in. Everyday copying became completely unnecessary when a printed replacement could be obtained.