Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[ding]

I'd ask for evidence for how it was believed a DNA strand was subject to natural selection in the 19th century, but I'm pretty sure Fort Fun Indiana would just say it was already discussed in this thread somewhere and I should find it myself.

 

[abu afak]

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible

No.
Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
Further:

Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Volume 20, #4
Creationism and Pseudomathematics

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.

Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.

Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.

Lightning Strikes - Often!
Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it never happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.

On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has any probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur.

Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.

All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible
The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their true probability and a probability of 0.

By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 and a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.

Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely some outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no preconceived outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
[.......]
[.......]

Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.

ncse.ngo

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible

No.
Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
Further:

Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Volume 20, #4
Creationism and Pseudomathematics

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.

Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.

Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.

Lightning Strikes - Often!
Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it never happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.

On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has any probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur.

Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.

All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible
The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their true probability and a probability of 0.

By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 and a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.

Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely some outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no preconceived outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
[.......]
[.......]

Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.

ncse.ngo

`

Does half an "evolved" DNA make half a cell?

Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.

 

[james bond]

Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.

And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.

Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.

Natural selection was created by God. It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Natural Selection Topic

Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?

answersingenesis.org

Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?

 

[abu afak]

Does half an "evolved" DNA make half a cell?

Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.

RNA could make a proto-cell.
IAC we have and self-replicating non (yet) living molecules.
It was just a matter of time before one somewhere got sparked.

`

 

[Hollie]

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible

No.
Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
Further:

Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Volume 20, #4
Creationism and Pseudomathematics

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.

Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.

Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.

Lightning Strikes - Often!
Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it never happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.

On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has any probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur.

Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.

All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible
The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their true probability and a probability of 0.

By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 and a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.

Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely some outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no preconceived outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
[.......]
[.......]

Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.

ncse.ngo

`

Does half an "evolved" DNA make half a cell?

Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.

See if you can better define the ID’iot creationer argument. What are the odds against development of the first cell?

Firstly, perhaps a crash course in biological evolution might be in order. Evolution does not deal with anything other than living organisms that reproduce and change over time in response to environmental pressures and genetic variables. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of living cells.

So, identify for us how you know that “the odds against cell formation is too great without supernatural intervention”. We can then move on to some more details for you.

 

[Hollie]

Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.

And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.

Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.

Natural selection was created by God. It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Natural Selection Topic

Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?

answersingenesis.org

Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?

“Answers in Genesis”?

Now that’s pretty darn funny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible

No.
Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
Further:

Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Volume 20, #4
Creationism and Pseudomathematics

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.

Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.

Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.

Lightning Strikes - Often!
Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it never happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.

On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has any probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur.

Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.

All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible
The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their true probability and a probability of 0.

By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 and a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.

Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely some outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no preconceived outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
[.......]
[.......]

Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.

ncse.ngo

`

Does half an "evolved" DNA make half a cell?

Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.

See if you can better define the ID’iot creationer argument. What are the odds against development of the first cell?

Firstly, perhaps a crash course in biological evolution might be in order. Evolution does not deal with anything other than living organisms that reproduce and change over time in response to environmental pressures and genetic variables. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of living cells.

So, identify for us how you know that “the odds against cell formation is too great without supernatural intervention”. We can then move on to some more details for you.

Do you not understand the complexity of a single cell? It's comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly AND it contains a DNA strand itself comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly.

Do you believe that all came together by random molecules colliding together?

 

[Hollie]

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible

No.
Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
Further:

Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Volume 20, #4
Creationism and Pseudomathematics

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.

Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.

Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.

Lightning Strikes - Often!
Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it never happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.

On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has any probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur.

Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.

All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible
The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their true probability and a probability of 0.

By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 and a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.

Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely some outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no preconceived outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
[.......]
[.......]

Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.

ncse.ngo

`

Does half an "evolved" DNA make half a cell?

Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.

See if you can better define the ID’iot creationer argument. What are the odds against development of the first cell?

Firstly, perhaps a crash course in biological evolution might be in order. Evolution does not deal with anything other than living organisms that reproduce and change over time in response to environmental pressures and genetic variables. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of living cells.

So, identify for us how you know that “the odds against cell formation is too great without supernatural intervention”. We can then move on to some more details for you.

Do you not understand the complexity of a single cell? It's comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly AND it contains a DNA strand itself comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly.

Do you believe that all came together by random molecules colliding together?

“Its too complicated” is the standard ID’iot creationer slogan.

This is where you should cut and paste the standard ID’iot creationer “tornadoes in a junkyard assembling a 747 airliner”, slogan.

Did you know that mechanical parts don’t evolve over time as biological organisms do? Yeah, curious. I could try and explain it to you but it’s, you know, too complicated.

The validity of a scientific model can be expressed to reasonable satisfaction. This can never be done in the face of hyper-religious / ideological opposition, because ideology carries assumed, supernatural causation and refuses facts and evidence.

The standard ID’iot creationer “it’s too complicated” slogan is not an argument. It’s an expression of fear and ignorance. Ultimately, science poses a threat to ID’iot creationer / religious doctrine of supernatural creation. It is a struggle between reasoned science and irrational literalism that terrifies the hyper-religious. The doctrine that three Christian gods created all that is, a mere 6,000 years ago is utterly inconsistent with the best of modern science as it is utterly inconsistent with competing versions of gods and supernatural creation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Debunked?

Correct. The silly argument for irreducible complexity was debunked. That applies to cells, organs, etc. Francis, you are 150 years behind the world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'd ask for evidence for how it was believed a DNA strand was subject to natural selection in the 19th century,

Which would be a typical ding parlor trick. When scientists were done laughing at your lame attempt, they would explain to you that the debunk of the irreducible complexity argument applies on any scale.

Every single day we discover "new complexity" in biology. 100 years from now some future FrancisDing goober will be dancing and prancing on the internet about how scientists in the year 1980 could not have applied it to the discoveries of the year 2020 that they didn't yet know about. Then this future fraud will cite contemporary discoveries and say they breathe new life into the irreducible complexity argument. And scientists will laugh just as hard at this future fraud as they are laugjing at you now. And that charlatan will be just as absurd and make as little progress (zero) in their silly effort as you are right now.

 

[james bond]

Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.

And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.

Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.

Natural selection was created by God. It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Natural Selection Topic

Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?

answersingenesis.org

Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?

“Answers in Genesis”?

Now that’s pretty darn funny.

Real science, not funny evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.

 

[abu afak]

Real science, not funny evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.

Politics doesn't matter only Evidence matters.
Atheists don't believe in god BECAUSE there is NO evidence you IILLogical Idiot mental patient.
THIS IS the SCIENCE/EVIDENCE section.
You have none.


`

 

[Hollie]

Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.

And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.

Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.

Natural selection was created by God. It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Natural Selection Topic

Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?

answersingenesis.org

Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?

“Answers in Genesis”?

Now that’s pretty darn funny.

Real science, not funny evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.

You make the mistake of believing he Bible is a science text. That’s nonsense.

You make the mistake of claiming that evolution is only believed by atheist scientists. There is no belief required to accept the demonstrated fact of biological evolution.

Religious extremists make the mistake of not understanding the facts they deny.

 

[james bond]

You make the mistake of believing he Bible is a science text. That’s nonsense.

You make the mistake of claiming that evolution is only believed by atheist scientists. There is no belief required to accept the demonstrated fact of biological evolution.

Religious extremists make the mistake of not understanding the facts they deny.

I said it many, many, many times that the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible. That's how I can use it in S&T section. Besides, we find religion is the basis of our science and that science and religion are opposite sides of the same coin.

The majority of scientists who believe evolution are atheists. These scientists even changed the rule to majority rules, i.e. consensus rules, when it comes to science.

The truth of biology is natural selection created by God, not evolution by natural selection (lie). Evolution also involves evolutionary thinking (abiogenesis) and cosmology (singularity) which are lies.

I would state that evolution and atheism are studies that have the religious extremists since they claim that what are lies are the truths and science. All of it is based on wrong religion and leads to fake science.

 

[james bond]

Real science, not funny evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.

Politics doesn't matter only Evidence matters.
Atheists don't believe in god BECAUSE there is NO evidence you IILLogical Idiot mental patient.
THIS IS the SCIENCE/EVIDENCE section.
You have none.


`

The evidence has been presented many, many, many times here such as KCA, animals all having names, global evidence for the power of water and global flood, the names of the geographical layers referring to location and not time, chicken coming before the egg, the swan neck flask experiment, and much more.

Instead, we find that you and your evolution science have no evidence and present the arguments of an illogical mental patient named Darwin. We are finding no life on Mars now (as well as rest of our solar system) due to no abiogenesis. Look at what happened with social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler's Nazism, and the Holocaust that was inspired by Charles Darwin.

Yet, you cannot admit you are wrong because of your atheism religion .

 

[abu afak]

james bond said:

Nobody had to make up the Christian God. It was explained in the Bible.

How else can it be the best selling book year-after-year?

There is NO evidence.
So you resort to yet ANOTHER of your Fallacies....

CIRCULAR REASONING
circulus in demonstrando
......

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.
This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.
......
Example #2:

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.
This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin

"There are still many uncertainties and unknowns about JCVI-syn3A, like what the other 8 of 19 new genes do to make cell division happen more naturally. Even of the five genes that have supposedly been linked to cell division, only two genes have known functions. It is still now known how the other five contribute to JCVI-syn3A's consistency during reproduction, but one thing is certain: this tiny genome now represents the new standard for experimentation that could help us characterize just what these genes do inside organisms."

Synthetic bacteria-like 'minimal' cell can now divide and grow like natural cells do- Technology News, Firstpost

Fascinating article on synthesized bacteria-like cells. With electron microscopes and super computers, we're still only cutting and pasting what already exists.

 

[abu afak]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin

AND.. indeed he was right, (Common Descent) confirmed by DNA nearly 100 years later!
and with All other relevant sciences in the explosion of them in the 160 years since.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin

AND.. indeed he was right, confirmed by DNA nearly 100 years later!
and with All other relevant sciences in the explosion of them in the 160 years since.

`

LOL!OL!OLolOlolol OMG I got a fucking soda nosewash!! that was hilarious!!