what are the odds?
All-Seeing-I
It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
bpuharic
creationism didn't even know dice existed
Friar Broccoli
10 billion is 10^9.
the number of bacteria rolling the dice is 10^30.
so for each set of throws you have 10^21 players trying.
Gee. I never realized the odds in favor of the development
of multicellular life were so good.
Thanks!
heekster
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
We have already established that you are ignorant of the mathematical
nature of probability. Anything that you post concerning this branch
of mathematics is considered horseshit, because of your ignorance.
BTW, your numbers are too small.
Thanks for playing.
heekster
<eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 7:41 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Evolution is on a roll!!
>>
>> It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>> consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>10 billion is 10^9.
>
I thought that 1 billion was 10^9. Wouldn't 10 B be 10^10?
VoiceOfReason
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> >It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> >consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> creationism didn't even know dice existed
Dice are eeeevil!
Free Lunch
>Evolution is on a roll!!
>
>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Your ignorance is disturbing.
Why are you so proud of getting so many things wrong?
Are you capable of learning?
Desertphile
Have you ever told the truth?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Paul J Gans
I love it when the creationist guys start in with probabilities.
My favorite discussion-ending thing is to ask the guy to pick up
a deck of cards and carefully shuffle it.
Then lay it out face up one card after the other until the entire
deck is exposed.
What, I ask, are the odds that YOU, of all people, would get that
order? The odds are so impossibly small, about 1 in 8x10^{67),
that it is just beyond belief that you could have dealt out that
hand.
They don't ever get it and go away because they think I'm mad.
That's the problem with after-the-fact probabilities. The guy
dealt a deck, one of the 8x10^{67) arrangements, all equally
unlikely.
Given that they are all equally unlikely, AND that he did, in
fact, deal out out the deck ONE of those 8x10^{67) HAD TO COME
UP.
So no matter what the odds of getting the 'right' throw for 10
billion consecutive throws (a number so amazingly smaller than
the number of arrangements of a deck of cards) -- no matter
what those odds, we START with the knowlege that that is exactly
what happened.
Question for the class: what are the odds against my having
had a banana with my breakfast this morning?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Inez
You just made that up. Why should anyone take you seriously?
georgecleveland
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
You do realize, don't you, that if dice could preserve the" right
number" combination through something like natural selection, that
they would evolve to roll the "right numbers" in pretty rapid order,
right?
What is it about Cretinists that causes them to ignore the difference
between one of the primary attributes of life and the attributes of
things like dice and watches?
g.c.
Boikat
Show your work.
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
Actually it is you that does not "get it". They are probably walking
away in utter amazement that an educated person cannot understand.
Let's suppose I lay out the cards exactly as you have explained. Then
make note of the order of the cards that I laid out.
Now, ask 1 billion additional people to do the same. But all 1 billion
people have to get the same order that I got.
Why? Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
right each time and for millions of years.
In your example, the very next birth or generation would go from fish
to human in one lay out of the cards. Well, evolution says you need
time. Lot's of time. So you need more then one lay out of the cards.
Then, we have such mathematicians as Roger Penrose that took the time
to work out "after the fact" probabilities because they do indeed show
us probabilities.
Now I could say something sarcastic here, but I won't.
The only thing one can assume at this point is that the evolutionist
and the creationist actually DO perceive the same information it two,
very different, and diametrically opposed ways.
Which is synonymous to me simply walking away thinking you are mad
right now. The only other possibility is you simply tossed out your
answer as a joke. Which does not make sense because you actually tried
to support your notion with additional formulas and explanations. So
the "probability" is higher that you actually do believe what you
wrote.
Sapient Fridge
<5cb270cb-c069-4f86...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
I think you missed the point. The chances of any *particular* deck
being laid our are astronomically low, but it's certain that a deck will
be laid out.
Your analogy would only be true if evolution were *aiming* at producing
humans from fish. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about humans
and evolution has no aim so although the odds us being here are
incredibly low the chances of *something* being alive today are very
high.
If the meteor hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs then one of them could have
evolved tool use and be sitting at a computer using their version of
usenet, asking what the odds of themselves evolving were.
<snip>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Mike Dworetsky
OB SF: Harry Harrison, "West of Eden".
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Friar Broccoli
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:52:28 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
> >On Nov 27, 7:41 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> >> It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> >> consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >10 billion is 10^9.
>
> I thought that 1 billion was 10^9. Wouldn't 10 B be 10^10?
I realized this about 1/2 second after pushing send.
So there are only about 10^20 groups of players.
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> > Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> > It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> > consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Have you ever told the truth?
What are the odds?
VoiceOfReason
The thing that creationists attempting probability never understand is
this: What is the probability that SOMETHING would have evolved?
100%.
The significance of that never seems to reach them.
Mike Lyle
rather not think about it.
--
Mike.
Desertphile
I like the car license plate explanation. Of course Creationists
are too stupid to understand that one also.
> Question for the class: what are the odds against my having
> had a banana with my breakfast this morning?
The odds of people in the Americas eating potato (cooked in a
dozen or more different ways) in the past week are extremely high.
This is why there are so many violent events on public school
grounds. And the Fort Hood murderers must have eaten potatoes some
time during the week proceeding their homicidal crime.
(Creationists won't understand this either.)
Desertphile
> Actually it is you that does not "get it". They are probably walking
> away in utter amazement that an educated person cannot understand.
>
> Let's suppose I lay out the cards exactly as you have explained. Then
> make note of the order of the cards that I laid out.
>
> Now, ask 1 billion additional people to do the same. But all 1 billion
> people have to get the same order that I got.
Idiot. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdOtzZVfSlk
> Why? Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
> changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
> diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
> right each time and for millions of years.
Yes, and the odds of that happening is 1:1, the probability being
p=1. No need to try to duplicate it again.
> In your example, the very next birth or generation would go from fish
> to human in one lay out of the cards.
That's exactly what phappens, shit-for-brains. And the odds were,
and are, 1:1.
> Well, evolution says you need
> time. Lot's of time. So you need more then one lay out of the cards.
No, shit-for-brains: one needs only one sequence of "cards," not
duplicated sequences. Sheeeish, you're a fuckwit.
> Then, we have such mathematicians as Roger Penrose that took the time
> to work out "after the fact" probabilities because they do indeed show
> us probabilities.
>
> Now I could say something sarcastic here, but I won't.
You are too stupid to see you're full of shit.
Desertphile
Just in talk.origins: 0:1.
Desertphile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdOtzZVfSlk
"RCR 21 Creationists' Math is Impossibly Stupid"
A bloody hell of a lot of Creationists cannot understand why the
odds of a vastly improbable sequence of cards, after the fact, has
the probability of unity (p=1) before the fact---- just like the
evolution of every species that has ever lived or will ever live.
> Your analogy would only be true if evolution were *aiming* at producing
> humans from fish. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about humans
> and evolution has no aim so although the odds us being here are
> incredibly low the chances of *something* being alive today are very
> high.
>
> If the meteor hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs then one of them could have
> evolved tool use and be sitting at a computer using their version of
> usenet, asking what the odds of themselves evolving were.
>
> <snip>
--
Desertphile
Nobody has ever taken him seriously.
raven1
No, actually, that would be you, as usual. You've just shown yourself
to be as ignorant of statistics as you are of everything else.
>They are probably walking
>away in utter amazement that an educated person cannot understand.
No one here is under the illusion that you are an educated person.
>Let's suppose I lay out the cards exactly as you have explained. Then
>make note of the order of the cards that I laid out.
>
>Now, ask 1 billion additional people to do the same. But all 1 billion
>people have to get the same order that I got.
>
>Why?
Indeed, why?
>Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
>changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
>diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
>right each time and for millions of years.
>
>In your example, the very next birth or generation would go from fish
>to human in one lay out of the cards.
No it wouldn't, you blithering imbecile. No one is claiming such a
thing.
> Well, evolution says you need
>time. Lot's of time. So you need more then one lay out of the cards.
No, you don't. The example was meant to illustrate the entire process.
>Then, we have such mathematicians as Roger Penrose that took the time
>to work out "after the fact" probabilities because they do indeed show
>us probabilities.
>
>Now I could say something sarcastic here, but I won't.
Or you can't.
>The only thing one can assume at this point is that the evolutionist
>and the creationist actually DO perceive the same information it two,
>very different, and diametrically opposed ways.
Indeed. The difference being that one group actually take the time to
educate themselves, so they don't argue from ignorance.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <5cb270cb-c069-4f86-b6b8-57a32c1e8...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
Sure, evolution was not "aiming" to make a population of fish into a
population of men. But that is indeed the claim of what happened.
Therefore you now have a target result to aim at with that claim.
In order to get to the "claimed" target result you need to show all of
the sequences from then to now. The mathematical probability of small
changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
IOW the cards would have to be laid out the in same manor for millions
of years and for the amount of sequences (X) needed to produce the
"claimed" outcome.
[] cut
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:56:08 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
>
> > On Nov 27, 9:36 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> > > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > > Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> > > > It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> > > > consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > Have you ever told the truth?
> > What are the odds?
>
> Just in talk.origins: 0:1.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Typical evolutionist responses when you are unable to address the
information.
nuff said.
raven1
You haven't provided any "information" other than revealing that
you're as ignorant of statistics as you are of everything else.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
That notion presupposed that evolution takes place.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
The evidence shows that evolution takes place. Reality must be one of
your weaker subjects.
Sapient Fridge
<6b0f6837-48ea-44c5...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
Targets that are declared only *after* they have been hit are useless
for statistical analysis. The usual analogy is that of firing bullets
at the side of a barn then drawing targets around the bullet holes.
>In order to get to the "claimed" target result you need to show all of
>the sequences from then to now. The mathematical probability of small
>changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
>claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
Nope, the probability that all the necessary mutations took place is
exactly 1 *after* they have happened, no matter how low their
probability was before the event.
Just the same as when I look back a random deck of cards after they have
been dealt, each card had low probability *before* it has been dealt but
a probability of 1 *after* it has been dealt.
>IOW the cards would have to be laid out the in same manor for millions
>of years and for the amount of sequences (X) needed to produce the
>"claimed" outcome.
Only if there was a target which was defined *before* the mutations
happened. Since evolution was not aiming to produce humans your
reasoning and calculations are wrong.
R Brown
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6b0f6837-48ea-44c5...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Bingo. There's the problem we're trying to get you to understand, but which
you won't because it destoys your argument. It's called EX POST FACTO
reasoning. Look it up.
Ye Old One
There wasn't a target, there was a result.
> result you need to show all of
>the sequences from then to now. The mathematical probability of small
>changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
>claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
Rubbish.
>
>IOW the cards would have to be laid out the in same manor for millions
>of years and for the amount of sequences (X) needed to produce the
>"claimed" outcome.
>
>[] cut
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Paul J Gans
Oh, well. That's a rather different question, isn't it?
>Why? Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
>changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
>diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
>right each time and for millions of years.
Amazing! Actually amazing.
You are trying to mirror life (and doing a bad job of it). You
are assuming that every sequence has to be just so for millions
of years.
In fact, if you can wrap your mind around it, you have just
disproven creationism. For God to have created us exactly the
way we are today, then by your reasoning, from Adam and Eve on,
there can not have been any genetic changes at all!
This is clearly NOT true. Your genes are different than mine.
So we are not EXACTLY the same. Thus creationism fails an
EXPERIMENTAL test.
I do not in fact expect you to get this. But every couple of
months I like to try.
PS to evolutionists: I know that the model is terrible. All
I'm trying to do is to show that the creationist model given
above does *not* reproduce what we actually see. Thus it is
wrong. Even a true believer has to admit that.
Conclusion: the model is wrong and there is no use discussing
it.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Sure, but as we all know, true believers still have the most powerful
tool in their tool box: denial, or, as Reagan famously garbled it "facts
are stupid things".
Paul J Gans
And it is a certainty that ONE of those totally improbable sequences
will, in fact, occur.
>Your analogy would only be true if evolution were *aiming* at producing
>humans from fish. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about humans
>and evolution has no aim so although the odds us being here are
>incredibly low the chances of *something* being alive today are very
>high.
>If the meteor hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs then one of them could have
>evolved tool use and be sitting at a computer using their version of
>usenet, asking what the odds of themselves evolving were.
Speak for yourself, mammal-boy. On the internet nobody knows
you are a lizard.
Hatunen
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>Evolution is on a roll!!
>
>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
Come, come. That's so trivial it hardly needs mention. Everyone
should know the numbers on dice are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Paul J Gans
We could play even more fun games. Assume for a moment that he's
right. There is no way we could have evolved. Now, what created
us?
Was it the God of the Hebrew Bible? Or was it as some think, the
Devil? Was it the mad genius from Xordax? Was it the coalition
of sentient Gay Gods who did it out of boredom? Or are we a
creation of the Acme Manufacturing Company meant as a self-
activating toy set for the Interspatial Gingons?
Consider this as a serious question.
What sort of evidence might there be to support any (all) of
these or some other theory altogether? Is there somewhere,
possibly at the South Pole under all that ice, an Impervium
plate with the URL of Acme Manufacturing complete with serial
number for this universe? Would we believe it if we found it?
Or shall we adopt the polytheistic god route, since the ancients,
who were closer to the creation, seemed to prefer that explanation?
Or do we just admit that we were created as a lab project by a
kindly guy that looked a bit like Wilkins?
The point here is that accepting creationism opens a much larger
can of worms than we normally think. It is one thing to come
to the table with a pet theory (Jehovah did it). Proving that
is another story.
I long ago decided that for me it is best to leave gods out of
it for that way lies madness.
Paul J Gans
Can you explain why it does not? Imperfect replicators (such as
you) living in a variable environment will have different survival
to reproduction rates. Evolution can't HELP but happen.
But you knew this. God evidently knew this too or He would not
have designed imperfect replicators.
TomS
<heqa1t$71v$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
My favorite calculation of after-the-fact probabilities:
In the olden days, the probability of a child living to maturity
and becoming a parent was somewhere around 50%. Yet I know that
this was true of every one of your ancestors.
You had two parents, that is ancestors of the first generation;
and approximately four ancestors of the second generation; eight
of the third generation; 16 of the 4th; 32 of the 5th; and so on.
Eventually, there will have to be some intermarriage, so let's just
say that you have 33 ancestors in the Nth generation all the way
back. And let's say that there are 3 generations per century (once
every 33 1/3 years). That means that you have 100 distinct ancestors
in each century. In 1000 years, that means 1000 distinct ancestors.
Each of those ancestors survived the 50% odds of reaching maturity.
The probability of that is (.5)^1000 or approximately
(10)^(-.3)^(1000) = (10)^(-300) = 1 / 10^300 = one chance in three
googols that all of your ancestors, over a thousand year span,
survived to have children. (You can dispute some of the numbers,
raising the probability to a bit more than 50%, decreasing the
number of ancestors per century, but we can also stretch the time
to several millennia so that the odds will still turn out to be
something like one-per-googol or so.)
Yet they did.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Inez
always quite high. It's like if you deal out a deck of cards-
whatever specific sequence you get will be extremely unlikely, but
you're guaranteed of getting some sequence. Humans are what we got,
but it could have just as easily been something else.
Walter Bushell
Sapient Fridge <use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote:
> Your analogy would only be true if evolution were *aiming* at producing
> humans from fish. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about humans
> and evolution has no aim so although the odds us being here are
> incredibly low the chances of *something* being alive today are very
> high.
And the odds of some multicellular life being extant in 20 years would
be much higher if we were not alive.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> They don't ever get it and go away because they think I'm mad.
If you're not mad, what are you doing *here*????
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> The odds of people in the Americas eating potato (cooked in a
> dozen or more different ways) in the past week are extremely high.
> This is why there are so many violent events on public school
> grounds. And the Fort Hood murderers must have eaten potatoes some
> time during the week proceeding their homicidal crime.
> (Creationists won't understand this either.)
Can anyone come up with an experiment to test that hypotheses? These
things are so low in probability that testing links between diet and
these events is hard. Perhaps we could test whether low carb diet people
have less people running amok?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net>:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>Evolution is on a roll!!
>>
>>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>We have already established that you are ignorant of the mathematical
>nature of probability. Anything that you post concerning this branch
>of mathematics is considered horseshit, because of your ignorance.
Needlessly restrictive, given Non-Seeing-Idiot's general
ignorance of anything regarding science.
>BTW, your numbers are too small.
Too small by *many* orders of magnitude.
>Thanks for playing.
"Now go find Mommy."
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Walter Bushell
"R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Actually the probability is 1, because it happened. An observer looking
at the time that insects were emerging onto the land would have been
justified in saying, "It can't happen."
Probabilities are set based on the knowledge available at the time of
their setting. Dr. Gans question "What is the probablity of my having
had a banana with breakfast", is illustrative. He knows so that for him
the probability is 1 or 0. Some people may know how often he has a
banana for breakfast and they can base a probability on that, but still
cannot make a bet with him on that.
>
> IOW the cards would have to be laid out the in same manor for millions
> of years and for the amount of sequences (X) needed to produce the
> "claimed" outcome.
>
> [] cut
--
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Going back far enough and those distinct ancestor are not so distinct.
But any interruption at the critical minute would give rise to a
different person who wasn't your ancestor. A knock on the door, a phone
call, anything.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
We could also ask them how I had more ancestors in generation (-30) than
there were people on earth at the time?
bpuharic
>
>Sure, evolution was not "aiming" to make a population of fish into a
>population of men. But that is indeed the claim of what happened.
>Therefore you now have a target result to aim at with that claim.
not only is it a claim but it's a fact.
>
>In order to get to the "claimed" target result you need to show all of
>the sequences from then to now
well...no.
what you have to show is a mechanism. a testable process that produces
changes in populations with time. and that's what's been shown
why do you think you have have to have the whole sequence, other than
some creationist/comic book view of science?
given the fact creationism has been wrong about nature for 2000 years,
you guys don't have the best track record in saying what is/isn't
science
.. The mathematical probability of small
>changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
>claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
OK. go ahead and prove this. you say you have the mathematical proof
write it down.
because 1 mathematical fact stands out about creationsm:
it's ALWAYS wrong.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>Evolution is on a roll!!
Actually, it's a bagel.
>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, two blatant errors in a single sentence, one implicit
and one explicit!
Looks like it's not only evolution that's on a roll...
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> ><allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >>Evolution is on a roll!!
>>
>> >>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>> >>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> >creationism didn't even know dice existed
>>
>> I love it when the creationist guys start in with probabilities.
>>
>> My favorite discussion-ending thing is to ask the guy to pick up
>> a deck of cards and carefully shuffle it.
>>
>> Then lay it out face up one card after the other until the entire
>> deck is exposed.
>>
>> What, I ask, are the odds that YOU, of all people, would get that
>> order? The odds are so impossibly small, about 1 in 8x10^{67),
>> that it is just beyond belief that you could have dealt out that
>> hand.
>>
>> They don't ever get it and go away because they think I'm mad.
>>
>> That's the problem with after-the-fact probabilities. The guy
>> dealt a deck, one of the 8x10^{67) arrangements, all equally
>> unlikely.
>>
>> Given that they are all equally unlikely, AND that he did, in
>> fact, deal out out the deck ONE of those 8x10^{67) HAD TO COME
>> UP.
>>
>> So no matter what the odds of getting the 'right' throw for 10
>> billion consecutive throws (a number so amazingly smaller than
>> the number of arrangements of a deck of cards) -- no matter
>> what those odds, we START with the knowlege that that is exactly
>> what happened.
>>
>> Question for the class: what are the odds against my having
>> had a banana with my breakfast this morning?
>>
>> --
>> --- Paul J. Gans
>
>Actually it is you that does not "get it". They are probably walking
>away in utter amazement that an educated person cannot understand.
>
>Let's suppose I lay out the cards exactly as you have explained. Then
>make note of the order of the cards that I laid out.
>
>Now, ask 1 billion additional people to do the same. But all 1 billion
>people have to get the same order that I got.
>
>Why? Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
>changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
>diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
>right each time and for millions of years.
Thanks for making the implicit error in your OP into an
explicit one; the error that claims that evolution has a
goal. It doesn't. Thanks again for confirming your error.
<snip>
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
We know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that evolution does take place.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Greg G.
> On Nov 28, 2:17 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message
> > <5cb270cb-c069-4f86-b6b8-57a32c1e8...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
> > being laid our are astronomically low, but it's certain that a deck will
> > be laid out.
>
> > Your analogy would only be true if evolution were *aiming* at producing
> > humans from fish. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about humans
> > and evolution has no aim so although the odds us being here are
> > incredibly low the chances of *something* being alive today are very
> > high.
>
> population of men. But that is indeed the claim of what happened.
> Therefore you now have a target result to aim at with that claim.
>
> changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
> claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
>
> of years and for the amount of sequences (X) needed to produce the
> "claimed" outcome.
>
> [] cut
400 million years ago, what were the chances of all the species alive
at the time not evolving into something else over the next 400 million
years? It would be nil. The climate changes alone would cause
evolutionary changes.
Each direction one population took would change the selective
pressures on all the other species and its own. All the possible
directions and resulting pressures yield an incalcubly large number of
possible scenarios. Therefore each scenario is unlikely to be the path
taken yet one continually branching path must be taken.
Why is it so hard to comprehend why we see an unlikely world?
magicus
Thanks. I am SO going to use this WRT my card magic!
ciao,
f
-
aa #2301
"Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
-- Frank Zappa
Bob Berger
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 9:47 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:56:08 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
> >
> > <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 9:36 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> >
> > > > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > > > Evolution is on a roll!!
> >
> > > > > It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> > > > > consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > Have you ever told the truth?
> > > What are the odds?
> >
> > Just in talk.origins: 0:1.
> Typical evolutionist responses when you are unable to address the
> information.
What "information?"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
My point was correlation doesn't equal causation any more than
improbable odds after the fact equals impossibility before the
fact.
Stuart
> On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > ><allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > >>Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> > >>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> > >>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> > I love it when the creationist guys start in with probabilities.
>
> > My favorite discussion-ending thing is to ask the guy to pick up
> > a deck of cards and carefully shuffle it.
>
> > Then lay it out face up one card after the other until the entire
> > deck is exposed.
>
> > What, I ask, are the odds that YOU, of all people, would get that
> > order? The odds are so impossibly small, about 1 in 8x10^{67),
> > that it is just beyond belief that you could have dealt out that
> > hand.
>
> > They don't ever get it and go away because they think I'm mad.
>
> > That's the problem with after-the-fact probabilities. The guy
> > dealt a deck, one of the 8x10^{67) arrangements, all equally
> > unlikely.
>
> > Given that they are all equally unlikely, AND that he did, in
> > fact, deal out out the deck ONE of those 8x10^{67) HAD TO COME
> > UP.
>
> > So no matter what the odds of getting the 'right' throw for 10
> > billion consecutive throws (a number so amazingly smaller than
> > the number of arrangements of a deck of cards) -- no matter
> > what those odds, we START with the knowlege that that is exactly
> > what happened.
>
> > Question for the class: what are the odds against my having
> > had a banana with my breakfast this morning?
>
> > --- Paul J. Gans
>
> Actually it is you that does not "get it". They are probably walking
> away in utter amazement that an educated person cannot understand.
>
> Let's suppose I lay out the cards exactly as you have explained. Then
> make note of the order of the cards that I laid out.
>
> Now, ask 1 billion additional people to do the same. But all 1 billion
> people have to get the same order that I got.
>
> Why? Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
> changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
> diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
> right each time and for millions of years.
>
No, it is you who don't get it.
Who says fish had to evolve? Who says humans had to evolve? Or that
they must be an outcome of the evolutionary process? On other
potential planets evolution may take a different course.
By stating that all one billion people must get the same order you
get, is the same as saying that evolution must proceed the same way
everywhere. We are the results of descent with modification plus a
boatload of happy accidents. If the dinos didn't get terminated by a
meteorite impact, primates might never have evolved, let alone humans.
Given a billion different life supporting worlds, some might have
organisms that resemble fish and people, others, maybe the vast
majority of others, will have nothing of the sort.
You seem to feel that 'people' are evolution's target. Evolution
doesn't have a target. It is merely a process. The sooner you
understand that, the better off you will be.
Stuart
Greg G.
wrote:> > In article <fmg2h5paf3a7s90asancndie5825odn...@4ax.com>,
> > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
> > > The odds of people in the Americas eating potato (cooked in a
> > > dozen or more different ways) in the past week are extremely high.
> > > This is why there are so many violent events on public school
> > > grounds. And the Fort Hood murderers must have eaten potatoes some
> > > time during the week proceeding their homicidal crime.
> > > (Creationists won't understand this either.)
> > Can anyone come up with an experiment to test that hypotheses? These
> > things are so low in probability that testing links between diet and
> > these events is hard. Perhaps we could test whether low carb diet people
> > have less people running amok?
>
> My point was correlation doesn't equal causation any more than
> improbable odds after the fact equals impossibility before the
> fact.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
So you're telling us that the correlation between the decrease in
people who dress like pirates and global warming is not a causal
relationship? I wonder what's causing it then?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Maybe the increase in piracy off of Somalia has stopped global warming
in its tracks.
heekster
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:13:43 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 28, 9:47�am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:56:08 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
>> >
>> > <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 27, 9:36�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> >
>> > > > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Evolution is on a roll!!
>> >
>> > > > > It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>> > > > > consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > > > Have you ever told the truth?
>> > > What are the odds?
>> >
>> > Just in talk.origins: 0:1.
>
>> Typical evolutionist responses when you are unable to address the
>> information.
>
>What "information?"
That would be the information that ASI never provided.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <6b0f6837-48ea-44c5-ba8c-c20598f7f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 28, 2:17 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <5cb270cb-c069-4f86-b6b8-57a32c1e8...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> >> >> ><allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> >> >> >>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> >> >> >>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> being laid our are astronomically low, but it's certain that a deck will
> >> be laid out.
>
> >> Your analogy would only be true if evolution were *aiming* at producing
> >> humans from fish. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about humans
> >> and evolution has no aim so although the odds us being here are
> >> incredibly low the chances of *something* being alive today are very
> >> high.
>
> >Sure, evolution was not "aiming" to make a population of fish into a
> >population of men. But that is indeed the claim of what happened.
> >Therefore you now have a target result to aim at with that claim.
>
> for statistical analysis. The usual analogy is that of firing bullets
> at the side of a barn then drawing targets around the bullet holes.
That is not true. Man claims he can land (or hit the target) on the
moon. And then proceeds to figure the mathmatical probabilities before
building the rocket.
Same applies here. Man claims evolution is responsible for the fish to
man idea and then caculates the probability of that.
>
> >In order to get to the "claimed" target result you need to show all of
> >the sequences from then to now. The mathematical probability of small
> >changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
> >claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
>
> Nope, the probability that all the necessary mutations took place is
> exactly 1 *after* they have happened, no matter how low their
> probability was before the event.
That would only be true if they were NOT cumulative. Evolution is
saying that accumulated changes are needed over much time. These
changes need to be consistent. The only way they will remain
consistent is if they are part of the next generation. If they are
part of the next generation then they count as 1 to the previous
generation as you said, The next generation's mutation is 1 as well.
BUT when you add the two together to get the cumulative effect you
have 2 sequences that took place and so on. Your way there is no
exponential rise in mutations. You need an exponential rise in
mutations for evolution to make the necessary changes or the single
beneficial mutation in one generation could simply drop off in the
next generation.
>
> Just the same as when I look back a random deck of cards after they have
> been dealt, each card had low probability *before* it has been dealt but
> a probability of 1 *after* it has been dealt.
True. But this would not give you an accmulated effect. Once the cards
are delt there would be no accmulation unless you dealt out a second
deck of cards in the same sequence on top of the others. Otherwise,
You would simply be starting over and dealing a new set each time.
Which would add nothing nor would anything be accmulated. You would
simply have single set of cards in a random order.
> >IOW the cards would have to be laid out the in same manor for millions
> >of years and for the amount of sequences (X) needed to produce the
> >"claimed" outcome.
>
> Only if there was a target which was defined *before* the mutations
> happened. Since evolution was not aiming to produce humans your
> reasoning and calculations are wrong.
Not so. You have a suspected starting point and a suspected ending
point. You can now calculate the sequences it may have taken to get
from the suspected start to the suspected end.
In this case, it would take many. Which lines up with what evolution
says. Evolution says many changes are need to 'accumulate' over time
to go from species X to species Y.
Dealing one set of mutations, (as in dealing once set of cards), and
then starting over will not do it because the sequences need to repeat
and they need to accumulate.
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org- Hide quoted text -
All-Seeing-I
> will, in fact, occur.
>
> >Your analogy would only be true if evolution were *aiming* at producing
> >humans from fish. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about humans
> >and evolution has no aim so although the odds us being here are
> >incredibly low the chances of *something* being alive today are very
> >high.
> >evolved tool use and be sitting at a computer using their version of
> >usenet, asking what the odds of themselves evolving were.
>
> Speak for yourself, mammal-boy. On the internet nobody knows
> you are a lizard.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
Such 'edcuated' comments from a DOCTOR.
Would you be a "spin doctor"?
of course.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 11:11 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>>
>> Targets that are declared only *after* they have been hit are useless
>> for statistical analysis. The usual analogy is that of firing bullets
>> at the side of a barn then drawing targets around the bullet holes.
>
>That is not true. Man claims he can land (or hit the target) on the
>moon. And then proceeds to figure the mathmatical probabilities before
>building the rocket.
>
>Same applies here. Man claims evolution is responsible for the fish to
>man idea and then caculates the probability of that.
well... no. 'fish to man' evolution is a fact so, by definition, has a
'probablility' of 100%
>>
>> Nope, the probability that all the necessary mutations took place is
>> exactly 1 *after* they have happened, no matter how low their
>> probability was before the event.
>
>That would only be true if they were NOT cumulative. Evolution is
>saying that accumulated changes are needed over much time. These
>changes need to be consistent. The only way they will remain
>consistent is if they are part of the next generation. If they are
>part of the next generation then they count as 1 to the previous
>generation as you said, The next generation's mutation is 1 as well.
>BUT when you add the two together to get the cumulative effect you
>have 2 sequences that took place and so on. Your way there is no
>exponential rise in mutations. You need an exponential rise in
>mutations for evolution to make the necessary changes or the single
>beneficial mutation in one generation could simply drop off in the
>next generation.
well...no. mutations that are favorably selected by reproduction will
be retained
you might have heard of this idea. it was invented by an english chap
by the name of 'darwin'.
>
>In this case, it would take many. Which lines up with what evolution
>says. Evolution says many changes are need to 'accumulate' over time
>to go from species X to species Y.
>
>Dealing one set of mutations, (as in dealing once set of cards), and
>then starting over will not do it because the sequences need to repeat
>and they need to accumulate.
and they do accumulate.
this was discovered by scientists. as was genetics.
creationism? it contributed
NOTHING
Paul J Gans
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:52:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
>wrote in talk.origins:
>>Oh, well. That's a rather different question, isn't it?
>>
>>>Why? Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
>>>changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
>>>diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
>>>right each time and for millions of years.
>>
>>Amazing! Actually amazing.
>>
>>You are trying to mirror life (and doing a bad job of it). You
>>are assuming that every sequence has to be just so for millions
>>of years.
>>
>>In fact, if you can wrap your mind around it, you have just
>>disproven creationism. For God to have created us exactly the
>>way we are today, then by your reasoning, from Adam and Eve on,
>>there can not have been any genetic changes at all!
>>
>>This is clearly NOT true. Your genes are different than mine.
>>So we are not EXACTLY the same. Thus creationism fails an
>>EXPERIMENTAL test.
>>
>>I do not in fact expect you to get this. But every couple of
>>months I like to try.
>>
>>
>>PS to evolutionists: I know that the model is terrible. All
>>I'm trying to do is to show that the creationist model given
>>above does *not* reproduce what we actually see. Thus it is
>>wrong. Even a true believer has to admit that.
>>
>>Conclusion: the model is wrong and there is no use discussing
>>it.
>Sure, but as we all know, true believers still have the most powerful
>tool in their tool box: denial, or, as Reagan famously garbled it "facts
>are stupid things".
The Bush Administration: we make our own reality.
Greg G.
Then we should pay their ransom demands and encourage more piracy.
That might increase our light sweet crude oil reserves, too, as they
have continually diminished during the decline of piracy.
Paul J Gans
>"On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:47:57 +0000 (UTC), in article
><heqa1t$71v$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>My favorite calculation of after-the-fact probabilities:
>In the olden days, the probability of a child living to maturity
>and becoming a parent was somewhere around 50%. Yet I know that
>this was true of every one of your ancestors.
>You had two parents, that is ancestors of the first generation;
>and approximately four ancestors of the second generation; eight
>of the third generation; 16 of the 4th; 32 of the 5th; and so on.
>Eventually, there will have to be some intermarriage, so let's just
>say that you have 33 ancestors in the Nth generation all the way
>back. And let's say that there are 3 generations per century (once
>every 33 1/3 years). That means that you have 100 distinct ancestors
>in each century. In 1000 years, that means 1000 distinct ancestors.
>Each of those ancestors survived the 50% odds of reaching maturity.
>The probability of that is (.5)^1000 or approximately
>(10)^(-.3)^(1000) = (10)^(-300) = 1 / 10^300 = one chance in three
>googols that all of your ancestors, over a thousand year span,
>survived to have children. (You can dispute some of the numbers,
>raising the probability to a bit more than 50%, decreasing the
>number of ancestors per century, but we can also stretch the time
>to several millennia so that the odds will still turn out to be
>something like one-per-googol or so.)
>Yet they did.
EXCELLENT!
I may steal that... ;-)
Paul J Gans
>In article <heqa1t$71v$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> They don't ever get it and go away because they think I'm mad.
>If you're not mad, what are you doing *here*????
It beats that other collection of lunatics I used to hang
out with.
Paul J Gans
Ectoplasm, my friend, ectoplasm. Something like ghost riders
in the sky, except they weren't in the sky... ;-)
Ye Old One
Yes it is.
> Man claims he can land (or hit the target) on the
>moon.
And proved he could do it many times.
> And then proceeds to figure the mathmatical probabilities before
>building the rocket.
Duh!
>
>Same applies here. Man claims evolution is responsible for the fish to
>man idea and then caculates the probability of that.
No calculations involved. It happened. We have the evidence to prove
it happened.
>
>>
>> >In order to get to the "claimed" target result you need to show all of
>> >the sequences from then to now. The mathematical probability of small
>> >changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
>> >claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
>>
>> Nope, the probability that all the necessary mutations took place is
>> exactly 1 *after* they have happened, no matter how low their
>> probability was before the event.
>
>That would only be true if they were NOT cumulative.
No, it is true because it happened.
> Evolution is
>saying that accumulated changes are needed over much time. These
>changes need to be consistent. The only way they will remain
>consistent is if they are part of the next generation. If they are
>part of the next generation then they count as 1 to the previous
>generation as you said, The next generation's mutation is 1 as well.
>BUT when you add the two together to get the cumulative effect you
>have 2 sequences that took place and so on. Your way there is no
>exponential rise in mutations.
Good, because there isn't.
I toss a coin 99 times and it come up heads every time. What are the
odds that the 100th toss will be tails?
>You need an exponential rise in
>mutations for evolution to make the necessary changes or the single
>beneficial mutation in one generation could simply drop off in the
>next generation.
Who said anything about beneficial mutations?
>
>>
>> Just the same as when I look back a random deck of cards after they have
>> been dealt, each card had low probability *before* it has been dealt but
>> a probability of 1 *after* it has been dealt.
>
>True. But this would not give you an accmulated effect. Once the cards
>are delt there would be no accmulation unless you dealt out a second
>deck of cards in the same sequence on top of the others.
You are talking rubbish.
> Otherwise,
>You would simply be starting over and dealing a new set each time.
>Which would add nothing nor would anything be accmulated. You would
>simply have single set of cards in a random order.
>
>
>
>> >IOW the cards would have to be laid out the in same manor for millions
>> >of years and for the amount of sequences (X) needed to produce the
>> >"claimed" outcome.
>>
>> Only if there was a target which was defined *before* the mutations
>> happened. Since evolution was not aiming to produce humans your
>> reasoning and calculations are wrong.
>
>Not so. You have a suspected starting point and a suspected ending
>point.
We have known starting and ending points, and we also know most of the
points in between.
>You can now calculate the sequences it may have taken to get
>from the suspected start to the suspected end.
>
>In this case, it would take many. Which lines up with what evolution
>says. Evolution says many changes are need to 'accumulate' over time
>to go from species X to species Y.
So?
>
>Dealing one set of mutations, (as in dealing once set of cards), and
>then starting over will not do it because the sequences need to repeat
>and they need to accumulate.
But you don't start over.
Forget the cards. Think of the old game where you start with a word,
then change one letter at a time, each time making a new word. That is
far more like evolution that dealing cards.
>
>
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Sapient Fridge
<2ba07a6c-8597-45b8...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>On Nov 28, 11:11�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <6b0f6837-48ea-44c5-ba8c-c20598f7f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 28, 2:17�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <5cb270cb-c069-4f86-b6b8-57a32c1e8...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
<snip>
>> >Sure, evolution was not "aiming" to make a population of fish into a
>> >population of men. But that is indeed the claim of what happened.
>> >Therefore you now have a target result to aim at with that claim.
>>
>> Targets that are declared only *after* they have been hit are useless
>> for statistical analysis. �The usual analogy is that of firing bullets
>> at the side of a barn then drawing targets around the bullet holes.
>
>That is not true. Man claims he can land (or hit the target) on the
>moon. And then proceeds to figure the mathmatical probabilities before
>building the rocket.
The probability of man reaching the moon *before* they did so was not
certain i.e. it was less then 100%. The probability of man having
reached the moon *after* the event is 100%. In addition NASA was aiming
for the moon whereas evolution isn't aiming at anything.
If I throw a ball in the air then what is the chances of it landing
*somewhere* compared to the chances of it hitting a particular spot
drawn on the ground?
Evolution threw the ball, it just happened to land on humans but it
could easily have landed anywhere else. Tool using walking talking apes
were not inevitable.
>Same applies here. Man claims evolution is responsible for the fish to
>man idea and then caculates the probability of that.
The probability of all the mutations happening *after* the event is 1
i.e. it is certain.
>> >In order to get to the "claimed" target result you need to show all of
>> >the sequences from then to now. The mathematical probability of small
>> >changes remaining consistent for millions of years to result in the
>> >claimed outcome of fish to man is astronomical.
>>
>> Nope, the probability that all the necessary mutations took place is
>> exactly 1 *after* they have happened, no matter how low their
>> probability was before the event.
>
>That would only be true if they were NOT cumulative. Evolution is
>saying that accumulated changes are needed over much time. These
>changes need to be consistent. The only way they will remain
>consistent is if they are part of the next generation. If they are
>part of the next generation then they count as 1 to the previous
>generation as you said, The next generation's mutation is 1 as well.
>BUT when you add the two together to get the cumulative effect you
>have 2 sequences that took place and so on. Your way there is no
>exponential rise in mutations. You need an exponential rise in
>mutations for evolution to make the necessary changes or the single
>beneficial mutation in one generation could simply drop off in the
>next generation.
Since the probability of a mutation happening *after* it has happened is
1:1 then to calculate the probability of all the necessary mutations
happening you multiply the probabilities together and get:
1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 .... 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 = 1:1
That's right, no matter how many mutations happen the probability of
them all happening *after* they have happened = 1:1 i.e. certain.
Your argument would only be correct if evolution was aiming to produce
humans from fish, but since we have no evidence that evolution is aiming
for anything your conclusion and any calculations based on it are wrong.
<snip >
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Ye Old One
>Such 'edcuated' comments from a DOCTOR.
--
Bob.
TomS
<o213h55q2dp306vst...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch stated..."
>
>On 28 Nov 2009 10:48:47 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>talk.origins:
>
>>"On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:47:57 +0000 (UTC), in article
>><heqa1t$71v$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>>>
>>
>>In the olden days, the probability of a child living to maturity
>>and becoming a parent was somewhere around 50%. Yet I know that
>>this was true of every one of your ancestors.
>>
>>You had two parents, that is ancestors of the first generation;
>>and approximately four ancestors of the second generation; eight
>>of the third generation; 16 of the 4th; 32 of the 5th; and so on.
>>Eventually, there will have to be some intermarriage, so let's just
>>say that you have 33 ancestors in the Nth generation all the way
>>back. And let's say that there are 3 generations per century (once
>>every 33 1/3 years). That means that you have 100 distinct ancestors
>>in each century. In 1000 years, that means 1000 distinct ancestors.
>>Each of those ancestors survived the 50% odds of reaching maturity.
>>The probability of that is (.5)^1000 or approximately
>>(10)^(-.3)^(1000) = (10)^(-300) = 1 / 10^300 = one chance in three
>>googols that all of your ancestors, over a thousand year span,
>>survived to have children. (You can dispute some of the numbers,
>>raising the probability to a bit more than 50%, decreasing the
>>number of ancestors per century, but we can also stretch the time
>>to several millennia so that the odds will still turn out to be
>>something like one-per-googol or so.)
>>
>>Yet they did.
>
>We could also ask them how I had more ancestors in generation (-30) than
>there were people on earth at the time?
>
I gather what you mean is that if there had been no intermarriage
between ancestors, so that if the number of ancestors at the N+1st
generation was always double the number at the Nth generation, then
we would have 2^N ancestors at the Nth generation. That would mean
that we would have 2^30 ancestors at the 30th generation, or more
than a billion ancestors 1000 years ago, which is clearly impossible.
This proves that there had to be some mating between relatives, or
that one's great-great-... grandfather on your mother's side was
also a great-... grandfather on your father's side. Actually, since
there was so little travel even just a hundred years ago, the
number of available mates for people then was extremely restricted,
so people had to marry people who were more-or-less distant cousins.
I tried to take this into account by restricting the number of
ancestors in each Nth generation to a group of 33, rather than
doubling ever farther back. I don't know whether that is a
reasonable limit, but if one is more restricted about it and make
it only 17 per generation, then we can the same result by going
back 60 generations (or 2000 years); or even 8 per generation,
120 generations, and 4000 years (which doesn't even take us back
to the 8 people on Noah's Ark).
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
TomS
<hesnmr$jcb$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
Thank you. Feel free.
One variation on this that interests me, is to trace the ancestry
of the Queen of England, where one might have an accurate count of
her ancestors back several generations. But I haven't been able to
find a full family tree of hers back to, say, William the Conqueror.
If I could get this, then we might get a better estimate on the
number of premature deaths (which, given the nature of their lives,
is likely to be rather high). And, as an added benefit, we are
given an alternative hypothesis to "pure chance": the hypothesis
that who survived was due to the purposeful design of God. The
Queen, after all, is queen "by the Grace of God".
VoiceOfReason
> On Nov 28, 9:47 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:56:08 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
>
> > <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 9:36 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> > > > > Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> > > > > It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> > > > > consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > What are the odds?
>
> > Just in talk.origins: 0:1.
>
> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>
> information.
>
The information, in this case, being that it's doubtful you've ever
posted anything in T.O that didn't contain one or more lies.
heekster
That is because William the Bastard was a Norman French Viking, and
the current "royal" line is German in origin.
>If I could get this, then we might get a better estimate on the
>number of premature deaths (which, given the nature of their lives,
>is likely to be rather high). And, as an added benefit, we are
>given an alternative hypothesis to "pure chance": the hypothesis
>that who survived was due to the purposeful design of God. The
>Queen, after all, is queen "by the Grace of God".
The soi disant "divine right of royalty" is bogus.
The queen of England is German. Before the family name was changed to
Windsor, it was Saxe-Coburg und Gotha. The Hanovers were German,
also.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:25:35 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 28, 11:11 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
> >> In message
> >> Targets that are declared only *after* they have been hit are useless
> >> for statistical analysis. The usual analogy is that of firing bullets
> >> at the side of a barn then drawing targets around the bullet holes.
> >That is not true. Man claims he can land (or hit the target) on the
> >moon. And then proceeds to figure the mathmatical probabilities before
> >building the rocket.
> >
> >Same applies here. Man claims evolution is responsible for the fish to
> >man idea and then caculates the probability of that.
> well... no. 'fish to man' evolution is a fact so, by definition, has a
> 'probablility' of 100%
Or, one should say, a probability of 1.
--
Desertphile
> On Nov 28, 7:08 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:27:11 -0500, Walter Bushell
> >
> > <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article <fmg2h5paf3a7s90asancndie5825odn...@4ax.com>,
> > > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > The odds of people in the Americas eating potato (cooked in a
> > > > dozen or more different ways) in the past week are extremely high.
> > > > This is why there are so many violent events on public school
> > > > grounds. And the Fort Hood murderers must have eaten potatoes some
> > > > time during the week proceeding their homicidal crime.
> > > > (Creationists won't understand this either.)
> > > Can anyone come up with an experiment to test that hypotheses? These
> > > things are so low in probability that testing links between diet and
> > > these events is hard. Perhaps we could test whether low carb diet people
> > > have less people running amok?
> > My point was correlation doesn't equal causation any more than
> > improbable odds after the fact equals impossibility before the
> > fact.
> So you're telling us that the correlation between the decrease in
> people who dress like pirates and global warming is not a causal
> relationship? I wonder what's causing it then?
Aye, matey, though it is still a good idea to dress like a pirate.
--
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> That is not true. Man claims he can land (or hit the target) on the
> moon. And then proceeds to figure the mathmatical probabilities before
> building the rocket.
Idiot.
> Same applies here. Man claims evolution is responsible for the fish to
> man idea and then caculates the probability of that.
Idiot.
Desertphile
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >Sure, but as we all know, true believers still have the most powerful
> >tool in their tool box: denial, or, as Reagan famously garbled it "facts
> >are stupid things".
> The Bush Administration: we make our own reality.
But there were and are vast stockpiles of Weapons of Mass
Destruction! Bush2 was absolutely right! Er, of course those WMD's
are in the USA, not Itaq.....
Robert Grumbine
> "On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:53:16 +0000 (UTC), in article
><hesnmr$jcb$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>>
>>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[trim]
One of the better genealogy sites (in terms of research and
reference) is Leo van de Pas's. The link for QE II is
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000177&tree=LEO
If I remember correctly, Charles has something like 2000 descents
from Billy the Bastard. The tree isn't complete, but it's probably
one of the more complete you'll find, and, I think, likely complete
enough to give you sufficiently extreme statistics for your purposes.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
TomS
<tr65h5dnmrhncb975...@4ax.com>, heekster stated..."[...snip...]
>> And, as an added benefit, we are
>>given an alternative hypothesis to "pure chance": the hypothesis
>>that who survived was due to the purposeful design of God. The
>>Queen, after all, is queen "by the Grace of God".
>
>The soi disant "divine right of royalty" is bogus.
>
>The queen of England is German. Before the family name was changed to
>Windsor, it was Saxe-Coburg und Gotha. The Hanovers were German,
>also.
>
>http://www.britroyals.com/hanover.htm
>
According to the Wikipedia article on "Divine right of kings", "The
theory of divine right was abandoned in England during the Glorious
Revolution of 1688�89."
According to Burke's Peerage and Gentry online, her style (since 26
March 1953) is:
'By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen,
Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'
<http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/peerage/page62-6a.aspx>
TomS
<slrnhh598...@saltmine.radix.net>, Robert Grumbine stated..."
Thank you.
It seems bordering on the compulsive to ask for such a level of
detail, but when creationists are involved ...
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>"On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:13:37 -0600, in article
><tr65h5dnmrhncb975...@4ax.com>, heekster stated..."
>>
>>On 29 Nov 2009 03:12:04 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>> And, as an added benefit, we are
>>>given an alternative hypothesis to "pure chance": the hypothesis
>>>that who survived was due to the purposeful design of God. The
>>>Queen, after all, is queen "by the Grace of God".
>>
>>The soi disant "divine right of royalty" is bogus.
>>
>>The queen of England is German. Before the family name was changed to
>>Windsor, it was Saxe-Coburg und Gotha. The Hanovers were German,
>>also.
>>
>>http://www.britroyals.com/hanover.htm
>>
>
>According to the Wikipedia article on "Divine right of kings", "The
>theory of divine right was abandoned in England during the Glorious
>Revolution of 1688�89."
>
>According to Burke's Peerage and Gentry online, her style (since 26
>March 1953) is:
>'By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
>Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen,
>Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'
I like that last bit about being the Defender of the Faith -- It's nice
of them to keep mocking the Popes and reminding them of what happened
with Henry.
><http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/peerage/page62-6a.aspx>
heekster
>"On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:13:37 -0600, in article
><tr65h5dnmrhncb975...@4ax.com>, heekster stated..."
>>
>>On 29 Nov 2009 03:12:04 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>> And, as an added benefit, we are
>>>given an alternative hypothesis to "pure chance": the hypothesis
>>>that who survived was due to the purposeful design of God. The
>>>Queen, after all, is queen "by the Grace of God".
>>
>>The soi disant "divine right of royalty" is bogus.
>>
>>The queen of England is German. Before the family name was changed to
>>Windsor, it was Saxe-Coburg und Gotha. The Hanovers were German,
>>also.
>>
>>http://www.britroyals.com/hanover.htm
>>
>
>According to the Wikipedia article on "Divine right of kings", "The
>theory of divine right was abandoned in England during the Glorious
>Revolution of 1688�89."
>
>According to Burke's Peerage and Gentry online, her style (since 26
>March 1953) is:
>'By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
>Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen,
>Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'
>
><http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/peerage/page62-6a.aspx>
What do you think the phrase, "By the Grace of God" means, then?
TomS
<mdg5h55km2svvd6uq...@4ax.com>, heekster stated..."
"Gift of God"? Some special action by God? Something other than
"luck of the draw"? Something beyond ordinary Providence?
Walter Bushell
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
Genealogy assumes that a wife's child is that of her husband, which is
not always true.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
2nd MarDiv? ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
<deser...@invalid-address.net>:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:46:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> >Sure, but as we all know, true believers still have the most powerful
>> >tool in their tool box: denial, or, as Reagan famously garbled it "facts
>> >are stupid things".
>
>> The Bush Administration: we make our own reality.
>
>But there were and are vast stockpiles of Weapons of Mass
>Destruction! Bush2 was absolutely right! Er, of course those WMD's
>are in the USA, not Itaq.....
I've always been curious to know what happened to the WMDs
that Saddam actually demonstrated on the Kurds...
raven1
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:44:38 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
><deser...@invalid-address.net>:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:46:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>> >Sure, but as we all know, true believers still have the most powerful
>>> >tool in their tool box: denial, or, as Reagan famously garbled it "facts
>>> >are stupid things".
>>
>>> The Bush Administration: we make our own reality.
>>
>>But there were and are vast stockpiles of Weapons of Mass
>>Destruction! Bush2 was absolutely right! Er, of course those WMD's
>>are in the USA, not Itaq.....
>
>I've always been curious to know what happened to the WMDs
>that Saddam actually demonstrated on the Kurds...
Whatever he had left had a finite shelf life, and would have been
unusable long before the US invasion, as the US was no longer
providing him with the necessary ingredients after the first Gulf War.
Q: Why was Donald Rumsfeld so sure that Saddam had WMDs?
A: He kept the receipts.
Ilas
news:9p01h5pn7i4bq5dic...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>>Evolution is on a roll!!
>>
>>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
> Your ignorance is disturbing.
>
> Why are you so proud of getting so many things wrong?
Because he doesn't care about being right or wrong. He only cares about
getting a reaction, and boy, does he manage that.
Robert Grumbine
believed.
You also get to ask the question of whether what matters is who
the gene donor was, or who raised the child. I favor the latter.
If I'm interested in the genes, then whole genome sequencing is
(will be) the way to go, not 'vital records'.
Eric Root
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:44:38 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
>
> >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:46:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> >Sure, but as we all know, true believers still have the most powerful
> >> >tool in their tool box: denial, or, as Reagan famously garbled it "facts
> >> >are stupid things".
>
> >> The Bush Administration: �we make our own reality.
>
> >But there were and are vast stockpiles of Weapons of Mass
> >Destruction! Bush2 was absolutely right! Er, of course those WMD's
> >are in the USA, not Itaq.....
>
> I've always been curious to know what happened to the WMDs
> that Saddam actually demonstrated on the Kurds...
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � - McNameless
They were mostly destroyed during the first gulf war, then sanctions
and the UN keeping an eye out kept him from rebuilding.
Eric Root
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:
I don't know the composition of Saddam's chemical arsenal,
but I wasn't aware that war gases, especially the simple
ones such as chlorine, or the binary ones, had a short shelf
life. Cite?
>Q: Why was Donald Rumsfeld so sure that Saddam had WMDs?
>A: He kept the receipts.
;-)
Eric Root
> On Nov 28, 6:01�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 10:47�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > > > ><allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > > >>Evolution is on a roll!!
>
> > > > >>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
> > > > >>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> > > > I love it when the creationist guys start in with probabilities.
>
> > > > My favorite discussion-ending thing is to ask the guy to pick up
> > > > a deck of cards and carefully shuffle it.
>
> > > > Then lay it out face up one card after the other until the entire
> > > > deck is exposed.
>
> > > > What, I ask, are the odds that YOU, of all people, would get that
> > > > order? �The odds are so impossibly small, about 1 in 8x10^{67),
> > > > that it is just beyond belief that you could have dealt out that
> > > > hand.
>
>
> > > > dealt a deck, one of the 8x10^{67) arrangements, all equally
> > > > unlikely.
>
> > > > Given that they are all equally unlikely, AND that he did, in
> > > > fact, deal out out the deck ONE of those 8x10^{67) HAD TO COME
> > > > UP.
>
> > > > So no matter what the odds of getting the 'right' throw for 10
> > > > billion consecutive throws (a number so amazingly smaller than
> > > > the number of arrangements of a deck of cards) -- no matter
> > > > what those odds, we START with the knowlege that that is exactly
> > > > what happened.
>
> > > > Question for the class: �what are the odds against my having
> > > > had a banana with my breakfast this morning?
>
> > > > � �--- Paul J. Gans
>
> > > Actually it is you that does not "get it". They are probably walking
> > > away in utter amazement that an educated person cannot understand.
>
> > > Let's suppose I lay out the cards exactly as you have explained. Then
> > > make note of the order of the cards that I laid out.
>
> > > Now, ask 1 billion additional people to do the same. But all 1 billion
> > > people have to get the same order that I got.
>
> > > Why? Because the 1 billion sequences represent all of the small
> > > changes over time that is supose to add up to a population of fish
> > > diverging into a population of humans. Every sequence has to be just
> > > right each time and for millions of years.
>
> > > to human in one lay out of the cards. Well, evolution says you need
> > > time. Lot's of time. So you need more then one lay out of the cards.
>
> > > Then, we have such mathematicians as Roger Penrose that took the time
> > > to work out "after the fact" probabilities because they do indeed show
> > > us probabilities.
>
> > > Now I could say something sarcastic here, but I won't.
>
> > > The only thing one can assume at this point is that the evolutionist
> > > and the creationist actually DO perceive the same information it two,
> > > very different, and diametrically opposed ways.
>
> > > Which is synonymous to me simply walking away thinking you are mad
> > > right now. The only other possibility is you simply tossed out your
> > > answer as a joke. Which does not make sense because you actually tried
> > > to support your notion with additional formulas and explanations. So
> > > the "probability" is higher that you actually do believe what you
> > > wrote.
>
> > The thing that creationists attempting probability never understand is
> > this: �What is the probability that SOMETHING would have evolved?
> > 100%.
>
> > The significance of that never seems to reach them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That notion presupposed that evolution takes place.
An apples to apples comparison would be, "that notion presupposes that
things fall when you drop them."
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eric Root
<er...@swva.net>:
>On Nov 29, 5:08�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:44:38 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
>> <desertph...@invalid-address.net>:
>>
>> >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:46:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Sure, but as we all know, true believers still have the most powerful
>> >> >tool in their tool box: denial, or, as Reagan famously garbled it "facts
>> >> >are stupid things".
>>
>> >> The Bush Administration: �we make our own reality.
>>
>> >But there were and are vast stockpiles of Weapons of Mass
>> >Destruction! Bush2 was absolutely right! Er, of course those WMD's
>> >are in the USA, not Itaq.....
>>
>> I've always been curious to know what happened to the WMDs
>> that Saddam actually demonstrated on the Kurds...
>They were mostly destroyed during the first gulf war, then sanctions
>and the UN keeping an eye out kept him from rebuilding.
OK, although the UN's record on preventing various actions
by nations under sanction isn't particularly sterling.
Dave Oldridge
f5607f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>Evolution is on a roll!!
>
>It called the right numbers on a pair of dice for ten billion
>consecutive throws!!!!!!!!!!!
Except the dice are many, many sided and there are trillions of them and a
lot of the numbers are right.
Yes, evolution will roll on until the last living organism is dead!
--
Dave Oldridge+