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

So then you are defining "the mathematics of God" as complete and utter bullshit which is not only utterly false but also completely useless.That's how you want to define "the mathematics of God" (which reflects on God Herself) then fine! Go right ahead! Knock yourself out! If you know nothing about what you are fighting against, then how could you ever possibly hope to fight against it?That makes you nothing more than the most incredibly stupid fucking idiot of all time.Just roll over and let your enemy disembowel you right on the spot. And rightfully so!You have absolutely no desire to oppose any opponent! You just want to be killed off!Pathetic!

YOU FUCKING STUPID IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!Abiogenesis HAPPENED!How?YOU want to claim that it could not have been through natural processes. WHY NOT? You APOSTATE HERETICAL PIECE OF SHIT!If GOD created those natural processes, then anything that HE/SHE did through those natural processes WAS DONE BY GOD!!!!!!, you vile less-than-a-worm!That is why you are nothing more than a fake creationist who wants to denigrate The Creation as some kind of "proof against God". HERETIC!So would you want to get on board with Actual Creationism, or remain a heretical fake creationist?Your choice, but I have no doubt that you will make the decidedly wrong decision, stupid as you repeatedly prove to be.

This all boils down to what one is trying to model with the math (maths to British types). The entire point of this is what model we would use to calculate a probability for abiogenesis.Ideally, we would already know how it would happen. While we don't know that yet, we do have good ideas of how it would have to, including what kind of math models we would need to use as well as which kinds of models would be totally unsuited. In Dredge's and Kleinman's case they are deploying an entirely unsuited math model -- while Kleinman has fundamental problems with math models, he might know a little about the science behind abiogenesis whereas Dredge is completely ignorant of both abiogenesis and of science (plus he is willfully stupid in his adamant refusal to even try to learn something).But what's happening now is a tangential argument (AKA "rabbit trail") to draw you away from the main point (ie, how to calculate the probability of abiogenesis) by miring you in a side argument.Both Dredge and Kleinman have decided that the model for abiogenesis would be winning the lottery many times in a row. Since no creationist has ever answered the question of how they think evolution is supposed to work (and hence they will also be deathly silent about abiogenesis), I would have to guess that, being creationists, they believe in saltation (the false idea that new species or complex organs just appear suddenly in one single massive step (eg, "a snake lays an egg and a bird hatches out") ).That means that in their model (if it could even be called such), abiogenesis would require random chemicals to suddenly all fall together to form a complete modern unicellular organism. The very fact that that uses single step selection makes the probability for success virtually impossible. Which is basically what happens when you play the lottery or any other gambling game.In my Message 35 I compare that with cumulative selection as they pertain to Dawkins' WEASEL. Creationists always try to saddle evolution with single step selection whose performance is abysmal whereas cumulative selection succeeds quickly and without fail.I was very surprised by Kleinman's Message 799 in which for perhaps the very first time in this thread he actually offered something that contributed to discussion. That was his link to the Wikipedia article, Joint probability distribution which contains a link to their related article, Complementary event. A basic problem in researching a topic is that you first need to know what it's called, kind of like needing to know how to spell a word before you can look it up in a dictionary to see how to spell it. I've been using joint probabilities for four decades and I invented using complementary events about three decades ago (and have only now learned what it's called). 
So, here's the basic problem with their misuse of a lottery analogy: it describes things that work almost completely unlike abiogenesis would have worked. Abiogenesis would involve billions or trillions (be they US/UK billions/trillions or real ones) of independent parallel paths involving chains of chemical reactions which do not need to happen one right after the other (basically part of what you've been trying to tell them).They're misrepresenting abiogenesis as requiring single events, each individual event being like "winning the lottery", but then requiring that that happen a thousand times over in strict sequence without any failed step at any point (at least that's what it looks like they're claiming, but since creationist never answer The Question, "What the hell are you talking about?", ... ). Hence they "model" it with joint probabilities, which is wrong.Instead of the analogy of "what's the probability of one person winning the lottery many times in a row", the far better analogy would be "what's the probability of at least one person among all the players winning?" That analogy is not based on joint probabilities (although it does use them in intermediate calculations), but rather on complementary events.Basing a model on joint probabilities will usually result in very low probabilities. However, using complementary events can result in success becoming inevitable because the probability of constant and persistent failure for all attempts becomes so low as to be virtually impossible.Here's how it works. So, let's apply this to the lottery, California's Super Lotto Plus to be exact:

• The probability P(A) of an individual winning a single game is 1:41,417,353 = 2.414515×10^-8
  ​
• The probability Q(A) of an individual losing a single game is 1 - P(A) = 0.999999976
  ​
• Assume 39,000,000 attempts per game. This is about the population of the state of California so, since most players buy more than one number, it's a reasonable number.
  ​
• The probability Q(B) of every single one of those 39 million attempts failing is the only joint probability in this: Q(B) = Q(A)^39,000,000 = 0.39
  ​
• The probability P(B) of at least one of those 39 million tickets winning: P(B) = 1 - Q(B) = 0.61
  ​
• The game is played twice a week, so what is the probability of at least one ticket winning within the week:
  1. Probability Q(C) of every single ticket losing: Q(C) = Q(B)² = 0.1521
  2. Probability P(C) of at least one win in a week: P(C) = 1 - Q(C) = 0.8479
  ​
• Now just for fun, what are the odds for a full month assuming 4 weeks in a month:
  1. Probability Q(D) of every single ticket losing: Q(D) = Q(C)⁴ = 5.352×10^-4
  2. Probability P(D) of at least one win in a month: P(D) = 1 - Q(D) = 0.9994648
  ​
• Let's double down and figure the odds of at least one win in a year (52 weeks):
  1. Probability Q(E) of every single ticket losing all year long: Q(E) = Q(C)⁵² = 2.9561×10^-43
  2. Probability P(E) of at least one win in a month: P(E) = 1 - Q(E) ≈ 1

So we see how the number of independent attempts affects the probability of at least one attempt succeeding (in most cases, we only need one success). Even if the probability for a single event succeeding is very improbable.We also see that the "model" being pushed by Dredge and Kleinman is the completely wrong one. No part of it has anything to do with how abiogenesis would work.And of course, once the ability to replicate has been established, then evolution would take over with cumulative selection. 

Your constant idiotic blather does make it difficult to figure out just what the hell you're talking about. And my standard question for all creationists, "What the hell are you talking about?", has had no effect.However, the question under discussion was your stupidly ignorant assertion violating even the laws of mathematics that the probability of abiogenesis was so low as to be less than zero. Then from there you immediately veered off to a scenario of winning the lottery several times in a row. That was the only justification that you offered for your remark about the probability of abiogenesis, which is why any thinking person (which obviously excludes you) could only assume that that was your proposed model for abiogenesis probability.So then what? You were just lying, being a typical evil lying creationist? You were just jerking us around, being a typical evil lying troll? You yourself are a lost cause. You will never even try to learn anything; you will always be a eunuch your entire life (Marcus Lykus). But there are the lurkers (called "visitors" on this forum; right now there are only 5 members present, but 148 visitors) so while explanations are totally lost on you, visitors will still be able to learn from them.So then, if "winning the lottery many times in a row as a model for abiogenesis" is actually not your model, then just exactly what is your actual model? IOW, that constant question for creationists which they can never answer and which terrifies them to no end: What the hell are you talking about?Yes, of course! Evolution, which is an integral part of how life works. As long as there is life doing what life does, there will be evolution. Nobody can separate the two, so inextricably linked together they are.Just because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about doesn't mean that the rest of us are similarly afflicted.Of course, if you have some bizarrely aberrant definition of "evolution" which is completely different from actual biological evolution, then do please present it to us for our examination. No creationist has ever done that; honesty and truthfulness are completely beyond their grasp. First, how life started has absolutely no effect on evolution. All evolution requires is that life exists. Life exists. Life does what life does. The net result of life doing what life does is evolution.If you got life, then you got evolution. The two cannot be separated. You want to eliminate evolution by eliminating abiogenesis (as if you ever could)? Doesn't work that way. Quibbling over how life could have gotten here has absolutely no effect on the glaringly obvious fact that LIFE DOES EXIST! And once life exists, we immediately have evolution.So, yet again, What the hell are you talking about?Second, if life started through natural processes, then even if we don't know all the details we are at least able to identify the kinds of processes that would have had to have been involved, processes that we know a lot about, including how they work.In another thread, there's a subtitle like "Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything". Now that is just downright braindead stupidity. Knowing how natural processes work, we can reconstruct an overall framework for something like abiogenesis, basing it on what needs to be done and how natural processes work -- maybe you are abjectly ignorant of how Nature works, but the rest of us are not.At the very least, we can figure out enough about the natural processes involved to know how any probability math models would be needed to describe them. Your own offering of winning the lottery many times in a row is a splendidly complete failure. My complementary events model makes immensely more sense.

¡Not only that! (gotta love that feature of Spanish), but there's also the 3-4-5 right-angle rule that is absolutely essential for doing your income taxes. It's amazing that all biologists and atheists haven't been audited by the IRS. Must be the Deep State at work!Oh yeah, the 3-4-5 rule has nothing to do with the federal tax code. It's still very solid mathematics, but it just doesn't apply here. And the "Deep State" with its "swamp monsters" is what Trump was trying to create and install; after having gutted the IRS so that they didn't have the resources to go after the top tax cheaters (such as himself) just about the only appointments he made were to the top three positions at the IRS in order to keep them from investigating his own taxes.So just what the hell is the "multiplication rule of probabilities" supposed to have to do with evolution? Or with abiogenesis? You are trying to model them as being like one individual winning the lottery multiple times, but what is a system with only one single path of attempts supposed to have to do with a system with an enormous set of multiple paths of independent paths of attempts? Wouldn't a far better model be the probability of at least one player out of millions or billions of players winning?But no, you keep using the completely wrong model. And you continue using the wrong model despite everybody telling you that it's the wrong model. It doesn't matter how much of a genius you are at doing arithmetic, if you use the wrong model for something then you are saying nothing about that thing.That is what makes you stupid, though being a creationist who knows nothing more than what's in his script also works against you.

I would guess that, unlike Trump who wanted to use his pardon powers to pardon himself but he couldn't, those priests are able to absolve themselves.So else they pardon each other. The buddy system.

Is that dry-aged or brined?Guess I've been watching too much Alton Brown. Oh bother!

Well, of course creationists do not know what they are talking about. Or else they have to be very careful to deceive themselves into not knowing the reality of their false position. Since creationists must argue against reality, they cannot allow themselves to realize that that is what they are doing.Ergo, creationists always lie, because they must always lie.So apparently they have to lie to themselves that they are "so much smarter than them" in order to maintain their self-delusion. 
But have you ever read through one of their ubiquitous "lists of scientists who believe in creation"? A number of them are from centuries ago. And a sizeable number are from problematic fields like "Theology" and "Food Science" (which I used to think was a joke, but watch Alton Brown or read "Cooking for Geeks" some time) which have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution -- real fact, no duff: a YEC actually challenged me once to explain how food evolved, when the answer is simple, "How did we evolve to turn that thing into food?"But the second thing that stands out (after the lack of biologists and geologists in that list) is the very large number of engineers in that list. The three fields -- engineering, science, and mathematics -- have fundamental differences in their cultures and attitudes and approaches which has generated a sizable body of jokes at each others' expense or at least general sneering at each other. Basically, they all think that the others are doing it wrong and don't know what they are doing, etc. Having worked as an engineer (albeit software), I know that they are only interested in practical solutions, so if you're trying to derive a conversion function for a sensor, they want you to give up your [voice=contempt]science project[/voice] and just build a look-up table. And then there are examples like the delta function in which you take your system and slam it with an instantaneous pulse of infinite amplitude (but whose area is one). My EE prof presenting that to us actually bragged that engineers had come up with it and were using it for a century before the mathematicians could catch up with them.Like I said, extreme hubris.Teach them a tiny bit of science and they suddenly think they know everything better than the actual experts. 
So what is it about the medical doctors (MDs)? OK, so they think that they are gods. Well, being atheists, we say "fuck the gods!"Let's look at three examples of MDs who think they know better than everybody else.Dr. Michael Denton from Australia. He wrote a book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985). After he had published, he stated in an interview that one thing he learned after publishing was how much he had thought he had known but which he actually didn't. Do a search on his last name and you will see where I posted about his idiotic approach to trying to match protein differences with phylogenetic trees. BTW, now that he knows better, not only was there not going to be any second edition to correct his errors, but he even joined with the Discovery Institute.Then we have our own Michael MD who thinks that his "discoveries" will completely revolutionize physics. A complete and total loon completely wrapped up in his own importance.And of course there's Little Man (Kleinman), who thinks that his own god-like intellect is far superior to those of us mere mortals. And who doesn't a single freaking clue what a math model is, let alone its absolutely vital importance to trying to solve any kind of problem.What is wrong with these MDs? Give them a tiny bit of actual knowledge and they suddenly think they know everything?

And yet we do still try to converse and reason with creationists despite all our attempts being doomed to failure.A number of forum members are former creationists, so there's always hope.

Too bad you don't know anything about biological evolution. Nor math models.You can't construct a meaningful or useful math model without knowing anything about the system that you are trying to model. And an attempted math model will be far worse than useless when you base it on gross misunderstanding of the system.But no, you're a creationist, so you will zealously avoid learning anything about biological evolution.

Why do creationists incessantly talk about themselves?Is this part of what you meant when you proclaimed that all creationists are evil? And that they are created by "evilution", which is the gross misrepresentation of evolution and other sciences that creationists have created and continue to push.

You need to get a new script to read from.

Not true. OK, so I am a geeky nerd (eg, I am right now watching the original Star Trek in the original German), but so is almost any other engineer. It's in the nature of almost every engineer; we tend to think like an engineer.The academic training for a traditional engineer in the USA is very rigorous. Normally, 18 semester units (granted you have never been anywhere near a college nor ever will be, a college class that meets three hours a week earns you three semester units, but one that meets every one of five hours a week only earns you four) is the normal maximum load a student is allowed (12 semester units is considered a "full load" -- a very important number for a student deferment for conscription ("the draft") during the Vietnam War). But for engineering majors 21 units, a much heavier load, were allowed. Not only that, but engineering majors also had a very narrowly defined study plan laid out for them which included introductory classes in other engineering disciplines (ie, MEs had to also learn something about electrical engineering as did civil engineers, etc).Software engineers were late-comers to that disciplinary system, drawn at first primarily from the ranks of mathematicians (so much for your "maths" slander). It's kind of like in the US military service where Marines would consider all other branches of the military as being "not true military troops" just because they didn't go through USMC basic training.IOW, complete and utter bullshit!In the thirty-five (35) years of my professional software engineering career, I worked primarily with embedded programming which had me working very "close to the metal" (ie, requiring intimate familiarity with the underlying digital electronic hardware). For that matter, at one job the head electrical engineer would regularly call me into his office to explain digital logic and the data sheets of digital ICs to him.But then what would you ever know have never gone to college nor ever left your mother's basement without ever having held down an actual job in any kind of technology? An article from the late 1980's which referenced an interview with Dr. Denton. It's buried away in one of several boxes. If I were to go through all the trouble of digging it up and transcribing it manually, what would that ever accomplish? You would just go full-blown-troll and pschaw it away. Fuck you, you fucking stupid troll!I know what I read and I am reporting it truthfully. What possible reason could I have to lie? I am, after all, not a creationist, so I have no reason to lie.No, that just proves that he's just yet another dishonest evil creationist.

Every time a creationist departs from his script he immediately reveals what an idiot he is.Never fails!

There is a lot of sniping between mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, especially in academia.My third bachelor's degree was in Applied Math (I was on active duty and still had two more years to serve after having earned my Computer Science degree, so I took four more math classes for the degree while taking more CS classes plus some EE classes for fun). For years I've been receiving the Math Department's newsletter. The earlier ones always included jokes that made fun of scientists and engineers.In my first EE class, Linear Circuit Analysis, our chapter on Fourier transforms introduced us to the unit-impulse function (AKA "delta function", "Dirac delta function) which is an impulse force of one (AKA "unity") and a delta-time of zero making the amplitude infinite. The idea was to slam your circuit with this instantaneous infinite force and see how it responds.Our instructor was an engineer who had worked in industry (as opposed the department head, a EE PhD with no practical work experience). In his presentation of the delta function he bragged that it was engineers who had come up with the idea and used it daily for the 100 years it took those stupid scientists to finally figure out how it worked (he didn't actually say "stupid", but it was implied). I immediately understood two things: 1) that engineers don't understand science, and 2) why so many of creationism's "scientists who are creationists" are engineers.Later one of my graduate computer science courses was taught by a mathematician. When he presented inductive reasoning, he told the joke about the engineer who used inductive reasoning to prove that all odd numbers are primes. He tested the odd numbers from 1 through 13 and found them all to be primes, so he then took the inductive step that all subsequent odd numbers would also be primes. OK, so the number 9 is not prime, but in a statistical sample population of that size you would at least one outlier, so he could safely throw out that one anomaly.About half the class was foreign students, I think primarily Chinese. They were frantically taking notes and were puzzled, slowly realizing that it was a joke.