Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument

You might be misinterpreting where Taq agreed with you that "the longer a sequence is the less probable any single sequence is." This is all part of the sharpshooter analogy. To briefly explain it again, the new nucleotide sequence resulting from a beneficial mutation is highly unlikely, but it is no more unlikely than the original sequence.The sharpshooter analogy comes into play when someone claims that only a specific beneficial mutation, i.e., a specific sequence in a specific gene, is necessary for improved adaptation in the existing environment, but that's not true. There are thousands of genes and hundreds or thousands or millions or billions or trillions of reproductive events every day, depending upon the reproductive rate of the organism in question. Almost every reproductive event includes random mutations, and some tiny percentage of them will produce improved adaptation.But a tiny, tiny percentage of a huge, huge number is still a healthy number. For example, about 400,000 human babies are born every day, and on average each has about 50 mutations, mostly SNP's. That's a total of 2 million random human mutations every day. What percentage of all possible mutations would produce improved adaptation? I don't know, but let's say that a beneficial mutation has only a 1 in a billion chance, or 1 in 10^-9. This means that the likelihood of a beneficial mutation in a human baby on any given day is 1 - (1-10^-9)^{(2 × 106)} = .2%. There are 365 days in a year, so the probability of a beneficial mutation in any given year is 1 - (1-.002)³⁶⁵ = .52. So there's a 52% probability of a beneficial mutation somewhere in the human population every year.And that's using a probability of 1 in a billion for a beneficial mutation. According to Population Genetics Made Simple the probability is much higher than that. A nested hierarchy is what is observed in nature. Accepting observations of the real world isn't bias.--Percy

Percy, not to detract from your argument, but you're off by a factor of 10, because 400,000 x 50 = 20 million, not 2 million. If you do the same calculation with the correct number your result of 52% shoots up to 99.9%. So the maths is even more in your corner than you thought.

Mikes participation is irrelevant. Anyone who reads the dialogues within the thread and who learn anything useful makes the thread relevant. Mike could be off playing hopscotch for all we know!

Oh, right. Here's that paragraph again with correct figures: Thanks for the correction.--Percy

My pleasure.

Closest match to quoted material: The Evolution Fraud - An Atheist Passion

quote:

---

In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*

​

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

​

[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

​

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

​

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

​

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

​

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.

​

Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

​

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

​

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. ( Novel Length: How Long Should your Novel be? | HotGhostWriter )

​

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (Business News Today: Read Latest Business news, India Business News Live, Share Market & Economy News | The Economic Times)

​

The average word has 6.47 letters. (How Many Words Is 100 Characters? - Capitalize My Title)

​

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.

​

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10 to the -3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”

​

“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)

​

Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the -50 or less.*1

​

owlcation.com

​

There are 100 such marbles per meter, and 100 times 1,000 per kilometer.
Therefore 10 to the 5 marbles cubed equals 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic kilometer.
*1 <link removed>

​

This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 923,400 billion billion spheres the size of earth, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two.

​

Calculations: (10 to the 5th marbles/km) cubed = 10 to the 15th marbles per cubic km
10 to the 15th marbles/cubic km x 1.083 x 10 to the 12th cubic kilometers/earth =1.083 x 10 to the 27th marbles to fill one earth sphere the size of earth.

​

10 to the 50th marbles / 1.083 x 10 to the 27th marbles/earth size sphere = 9.234 x 1023 earths full of marbles, which is to say 923,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 (923,400 billion billion) earths full to search and find the unique marble on your first and only try. Personally, I would call it impossible to find that unique marble in just one earth-sized sphere full of them.]

​

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:

​

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

​

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

​

Dawkins continues:

​

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.

​

[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (<link removed>) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, Dawkins’ definition of “impossible.” We are looking for only one of this “impossible” number. This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then, on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.

​

Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humans*a, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138*b amino acid residues in length.

​

One out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acids*c and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bondsd reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go!

​

*a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840/
*b - The Size of the Human Proteome: The Width and Depth - PMC
*c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480
*d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480 ]

---

[Postnote: Richard Dawkins asserts, “We shall make it relatively easy by giving him (the monkey) a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, only 26 keys…”
The standard American typewriter keyboard has 88 keys, counting upper and lower case, not 26.

The Miserable End of Darwinian Evolution“There can be no going downhill - species can’t get worse as a prelude to getting better.” – Page 91, Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins“It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal.” – Ibid, Page 132“To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection.” – Ibid, Page 134“The fact of heredity sees to it that the accidental improvements found in each generation are accumulated over many generations. At the end of many generations of cumulative finding, a designoid object is produced which may make us gasp with admiration at the perfection of its apparent design.” – Ibid, Page 28
We shall now “gasp with admiration at the perfection” of the apparent design of Darwinian “selection” today.[This is very user unfriendly. I can see no way to insert any of my images or graphs despite the notice on the left which reads "Images Enabled."]Slums are the fastest growing, i.e. Darwinian, human habit on earth today. Worldwide, over one billion humans live in them, 24% of all humanity.“Going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by natural selection.” The billion plus humans living in slums are not going up any slopes other than trash.Making copies of ourselves “is every living object’s sole reason for living.” – Richard DawkinsThen Dawkins and his atheist accomplices are all losing the evolutionary battle, and for them, what else is there, really?
While religiously unaffiliated people currently make up 16% of the global population, only an estimated 10% of the world’s newborns between 2010 and 2015 were born to religiously unaffiliated mothers..
By 2055 to 2060, just 9% of all babies will be born to religiously unaffiliated women, while more than seven-in-ten will be born to either Muslims (36%) or Christians (35%). – PewResearch.org/religion/2017/04/05We could call this “The Tragedy of the Brights,” as they like to call themselves in smug, pretend superiority.The least educated of the world are the most Darwinian:This is in stark contrast to some of the racist and anti-prophetic words of Charles Darwin, whose first book was titled, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter 3
The ten most fertile countries in the world are all populated by what Darwin referred to as “savages” or “dark races”.1. Niger: 7.27 children per woman.
2. Angola: 6.57 children per woman.
3. Democratic Republic of the Congo: 6.54 children per woman.
4. Mali: 6.49 children per woman.
5. Benin: 6.48 children per woman.
6. Chad: 6.47 children per woman.
7. Uganda: 6.45 children per woman.
8. Somalia: 6.43 children per woman.
9. South Sudan: 6.42 children per woman.
10. Burundi: 6.41 children per woman1. (Statista.com)The least educated also happen to be the least developed:And the poorest:In conclusion, Darwinism and its atheist advocates in particular, such as Richard Dawkins, married three times and only one child, are evolutionary failures.Science Books Challenging DarwinismIntelligent Design – The Bridge Between Science and Theology, William A. Dembski
Signature in the Cell- DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, by William A. Dembski
Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language, by Dembski et al
Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution, by Michael J. Behe
Intelligent Design: Message From the Designers, by Rael
Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer
Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language by William A. Dembski
Undeniable, by Douglas Axe
Brilliant Creations – The Wonder of Nature and Life, by John Phillip JaegerTHE END
OF DARWINISM….

Why do you fundamentalists have to present your nonsense in this gobbledegook way? I doubt anyone here can be bothered to read this stuff that you pretty obviously just spam wherever you can.Why don't you pick just one issue that you think worthy of discussion, make your point simply and back it with whatever evidence you think you have and we can discuss it rationally.btw, nobody here thinks Dawkins is some sort of god, we don't hang on his words like a religious believer does so you're wasting your time trying to dethrone him; there is no throne here.

They have to as a means of self-preservation. If they were ever to present their position clearly and their arguments against evolution clearly (which would also require them to present evolution clearly and accurately), then even they would immediately realize how utter false and stupid their position actually is.Not only must they employ confusion in order to deceive us, but far more importantly they must keep themselves deceived. As per my oft-repeated quote from Quora (latest iteration in Message 301, but, what the heck, now here again):

quote:

---

Why do people get angry when I try to share the word of God with them? I only do it because I care about them deeply and don't want them to end up in hell. I feel like some people avoid me because of this. Is there any way to get through to them?

​

by Doug Robertson, studied at University of Maine
Updated Dec 11 2018

​

The entire process is not what you think it is.

​

It is specifically designed to be uncomfortable for the other person because it isn't about converting them to your religion. It is about manipulating you so you can't leave yours.

​

If this tactic was about converting people it would be considered a horrible failure. It recruits almost no one who isn't already willing to join. Bake sales are more effective recruiting tools.

​

On the other hand, it is extremely effective at creating a deep tribal feeling among its own members.

​

The rejection they receive is actually more important than the few people they convert. It causes them to feel a level of discomfort around the people they attempt to talk to. These become the "others". These uncomfortable feelings go away when they come back to their congregation, the "Tribe".

​

If you take a good look at the process it becomes fairly clear. In most cases, the religious person starts out from their own group, who is encouraging and supportive. They are then sent out into the harsh world where people repeatedly reject them. Mainly because they are trained to be so annoying.

​

These brave witnesses then return from the cruel world to their congregation where they are treated like returning heroes. They are now safe. They bond as they share their experiences of reaching out to the godless people to bring them the truth. They share the otherness they experience.

​

Once again they will learn that the only place they are accepted is with the people who think as they do. It isn't safe to leave the group. The world is your enemy, but we love you.

​

This is a pain reward cycle that is a common brainwashing technique. The participants become more and more reliant on the "Tribe" because they know that "others" reject them.

​

Mix in some ritualized chanting, possibly a bit of monotonous repetition of instructions, add a dash of fear of judgment by an unseen, but all-powerful entity who loves you if you do as you are told and you get a pretty powerful mix.

​

Sorry, I have absolutely no wish to participate in someone's brainwashing ritual.

---

They couldn't care less about convincing any of us. All they really care about is keeping themselves convinced of their false nonsense, of their own stupid lies.

Troll alert

Troll alert

Dawkins is a racist, misogynist ass. He is also an atheist. All irrelevant, but theists don't get it.

Links were removed from your message due to a software problem that is now fixed. If you edit your message you can add the links back in. I apologize for the problem.

Since it was my fault, I took it upon myself to restore the links to your message and discovered that almost all of your message is a copy-n-paste. From the Forum Guidelines:

6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

That's what I have found as well. Christian apologetics was never about convincing the nonbelievers. It's about making the believers feel better about their own beliefs. This is what we see with ChemEngineer as well. Pointing to the higher birth rates amongst poor people is probably some slam dunk argument somewhere in the deep, dark bowels of Christendom, but in the light of day it is only going to make people laugh at him.If anyone wants to understand why Creationism is not taken seriously by the scientific community just read ChemEngineer's post.