Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument

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!

Yes, of course. Regardless, creationist probability arguments against evolution have been refuted as demonstrated. That is the reality and you have not challenged it. You bitch about it and insult the mathematicians behind it but the reality is there still.

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.

Your two points were both versions of the same error I quoted in my message. That is why I quoted it. You didn't read the paper did you.

Hahah, you did not even understand the two points. You are just trolling now, as your arguments have failed you.

What did I not understand about your two probability points?

Wow, do you even know which two points was referring to? I guess not. You keep failing in every topic haha.

Then feel free to enlighten me.

What a great read! I'm saving it for future reference and to run down some of the citations. This may be a trove of handy references and it bursts some recent probability bullshitter's bubbles.We've been over all this stuff before, most recently with Taq (his patience is admirable!), but it's really nice seeing the whole bunch of them (creationist probability arguments) analyzed and torn to shreds.

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.

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.

It's not possible to answer the question, "How many of the possible sequences would be neutral or better than neutral compared to the current sequence?" And any answer would change over time because of changing circumstances at the protein, phenotype and environmental levels. Because it affects the probabilities you're calculating quite substantially it's worth noting that nucleotides are grouped into codons. 61 specify amino acids and the remaining 3 are start/stop codons. But there are only 20 amino acids, so there is some redundancy in that more than one codon can represent the same amino acid.So the probability isn't what you calculated since what matters isn't the nucleotide sequence but the amino acid sequence that the codons correspond to. Your calculation is 4¹⁹⁸ = 1.6 × 10¹¹⁹ (198 instead of 200 so that it is a multiple of 3 making 66 codons) is the number of random nucleotide sequences. But the beginning and end of the gene's codon sequence have to be start and stop codons, so that means only 64 coding codons. And since there are only 20 amino acids, the actual probability of any given random codon sequence is 20⁶⁴ = 1.8 × 10⁸³, nearly 40 orders of magnitude smaller than your original calculation. Why do you think it very unlikely? How would you know? Isn't it a function of influences independent of the sequence itself and inherently unknowable?But obviously the answers are very favorable to life. SARS-Cov-2 is a recent example, evolving merrily around our defensive strategies.--Percy

For a random sequence, all sequences are equally likely. Why do you think this isn't true? What does that even mean? Where is it defined?

That's just a bare assertion. You aren't showing us any math or any evidence. That's irrelevant. Let's do some math for what is happening in the human genome.The diploid human genome is 6 billion bases. There are 3 possible substitution mutations at each base, so that's a total of 18 billion possible mutations. Each of us is born with about 50 mutations. The probability that each person is born with the 50 mutations they are born with is 18 billion to the 50th power, or ~6x10^512. That's just for one person. And yet, this happens all of the time even though the outcome is so improbable. It also produces a human even though the odds of that genome existing are nearly zero. Funny how you can't do the math.

Apparently, you can't do the math.What are the probabilities of these two sequences of coin flips?sequence 1 : H, H, H, H
sequence 2 : T, H, H, T