the old improbable probability problem

quote:

---

I disagree with this statement. Do all the variables need to be quantified before any hypothesis can be formulated? If so, please name an area of science where strict adherence to this principle applies.

---

There's a clear equivocation there. The point you were responding to was about producing a valid probability calculation, not merely formulating a hypothesis. Obviously proving a hypothesis requires much more evidence than merely formulating one.As for your little story I will just comment that it is nasty, dishonest and insulting.

So basically creationists argue that the magician must have worked real magic because we can't consider any alternatives to that, other than pure chance...

quote:

---

I can honestly say I do not believe in magic can you?

---

I can. I can also honestly say that I believe that the magicians use stage magic and that any probability calculation that ignores that to argue that they use real magic is dishonest.Likewise any probability calculation that sets up a false dichotomy between pure chance and magic - which is the typical Creationist strategy - is dishonest. Alternative possibilities must be considered and dealt with.The paper you cited deals only with pure chance assembly. As such it is only relevant to those who believe that cellular life - as described in the paper - came about by pure chance assembly. Can you show anybody explicitly promoting the scenario described ? If not, then what's the relevance of the paper ? Is it just the calculation of the probability of a scenario that nobody seriously considers ? Ask yourself what honest purpose could be served by such a thing.