|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the old improbable probability problem | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3663 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
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... I can honestly say I do not believe in magic can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are No, that means that they know which hand was dealt*. But not the composition of the deck.
* Actually, it would be more precise to say that knowing the details of the very first life would correspond to knowing which hand was dealt, and of course they don't know that. What can one really say about the origin of life. Something arose (but we don't know what) out of preconditions which we cannot specify, by a process of which we are uncertain. Then along comes a man who tells we that he can calculate the odds of that. This man is a creationist. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I can honestly say I do not believe in magic can you? Would your way of "honestly" saying this be, by any whilom chance, deeply misleading?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17918 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again zaius137
Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are For the form of life that arose on this planet. How many other viable forms of life could have arisen instead?
Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are And how many different ways can each of these elements occur? If you have a thousand decks of cards all mixed together, how many different ways can you form a royal straight flush in spades? A billion decks? Would you agree that these would be a much larger number of possible ways than could occur from a single deck?
this only goes to show a estimation of a probability can be made. Again, you have failed to tell me the probability I will throw a 6 with the di in my hand. If you don't know all the possibilities then you cannot calculate the probabilities. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Creatonist argument for probability (in Proposed New Topics) LexM1985 says
Many of you have probably at some point come across the creationist argument for probability which often uses calculations to make the case that the formation of the universe and life could not have arose by "chance." This argument differs slightly from the argument for intelligent design in that it not only examines the alleged complexity, design, and order of structures (for example examining the complexity/design of a molecule), but the probability that each component of the universe needed to sustain life could have developed independently and function seamlessly. This argument is commonly used to try to disprove abiogenesis and strives to demonstrate that earths position in the universe is too perfect to have gotten there by chance (Goldilocks argument). The calculations made to support these arguments result in staggeringly huge numbers like 3.34 x 10^450 and are usually followed with Borel's law. Without even thinking too hard about it, I see a few things wrong with this argument 1) It assumes that that the development of the universe is random, when in reality it is driven by the laws of nature 2) The universe is practically infinitely vast. For the one planet that did develop within a life sustaining solar system, there are countless others that did not. 3) It only looks at the way life DID develop ex post facto instead of all the ways it COULD HAVE developed with only slightly different conditions. Any thoughts? Hi LexM1985, and welcome to the fray, See Message 1 for other parts of this issue. Feel free to add here. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LexM1985 Junior Member (Idle past 4542 days) Posts: 9 Joined:
|
Fair enough. I'll also add that after more digging I found a very comprehensive criticism of Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of
Abiogenesis Calculations on a creationist-dominant debate board: Bot Verification
I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the PHD in biochem to form an original opinion about the science behind these claims, but I do generally trust the mainstream scientific community because of their obvious contributions to society. So it really comes down to an issue of which "experts" each person puts his trust in. I also read some criticism that this board was too evolution-biased and self-affirming. Maybe some people from here should post on The Evolution Fairytale and vice versa for more lively discourse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the PHD in biochem to form an original opinion about the science behind these claims ... Most of the creationist arguments can be shown false without a detailed knowledge of biochemistry, because, of course, they are not based on a detailed knowledge of biochemistry. Indeed, as I argued in post #59, such an argument cannot be legitimately based on our knowledge of biochemistry, because of all the things we don't know.
I also read some criticism that this board was too evolution-biased and self-affirming. Maybe some people from here should post on The Evolution Fairytale and vice versa for more lively discourse. Those of us who have tried, such as myself, have been banned for egregiously evolutionist behavior, such as citing facts. Usually this happens within a couple of days. Their complaints are therefore stupid, hypocritical and self-serving ... or, in a word, creationist. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
LexM1985 writes: I also read some criticism that this board was too evolution-biased and self-affirming. Maybe some people from here should post on The Evolution Fairytale and vice versa for more lively discourse. Many of us have tried to debate there, as far as I know we've all been banned. In my case within 48 hours. This happens without warning or explanation. If you read the boards there, you'll see the number of people who are banned and can decide for yourself whether their behaviour merited it.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 281 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined:
|
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes: Anyone care to play? I do not know much about probability or improbability, things just are or they are not. But if there was a beginning to exist you would have none of the things mentioned. If there ever was non-existence there would be zero chance of existence beginning to exist. If you disagree please explain how existence could begin to exist if there was no existence. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
If there ever was non-existence there would be zero chance of existence beginning to exist. Show your calculations, ICANT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator (Idle past 238 days) Posts: 897 Joined: |
I do not know much about probability or improbability, things just are or they are not. But if there was a beginning to exist you would have none of the things mentioned. If there ever was non-existence there would be zero chance of existence beginning to exist. If you disagree please explain how existence could begin to exist if there was no existence. God Bless, This doesn't look like it is on topic. The OP is a criticism of the 'it's too improbable' argument in its various forms. One should either be arguing further criticisms or posting a defense of it. This is not an ontological or cosmological discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
If you have a thousand decks of cards all mixed together, how many different ways can you form a royal straight flush in spades? A billion decks? Would you agree that these would be a much larger number of possible ways than could occur from a single deck? Just like to point out that with a thousand decks of cards you've got a much larger "sequence space" from which only a fraction will yield a useful combination of cards (in the context of a poker game). In other words, increasing the number of decks doesn't make it any more probable that you'll get a royal flush. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just like to point out that with a thousand decks of cards you've got a much larger "sequence space" from which only a fraction will yield a useful combination of cards (in the context of a poker game). In other words, increasing the number of decks doesn't make it any more probable that you'll get a royal flush. It makes it much more probable that you'll get a royal flush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
I think you two might be talking past each other.
I think that Genomicus thinks that we're talking about the probability of combining a billion decks of cards and still dealing only one single hand that is a royal flush. I think that we're talking about using each of those billion decks of cards to deal a billion hands and the probability that at least one of those billion hands being a royal flush.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024