hysterical Darwinites panic

crosswalk ^ | 2004 | creationist

[tortoise]

The biggest problem with these computations that take all the mutations that ever happened and then whomp up some kind of factorial result by stringing together all the generations is simply that ... each generation is mathematically on its own!

It is not so much a fallacy as it is a case of people being ignorant of math, and probability theory and statistics is something most people find difficult to get right generally. Heck, I have to think about some of these things very hard to make sure I'm applying the math correctly and I'm supposed to know this stuff.

This particular misapplication of math refuses to die on these threads. The most common invalid uses are the assumption of an isotropic probability space (doesn't exist really but it makes the math *much* easier, never mind the wildly invalid results), and what you allude to above, inverting the size of the phase space and calling it "statistical probability".

If one can get people to acknowledge that the probability space is not isotropic, it will follow from the math that many outcomes are astronomically more probable than the number arrived at by inverting the size of the phase space.

[bvw]

So you don't sleep?

[WildTurkey]

LOL...you are really into this alien thing ....I haven't even mentioned an alien.....whasup? :)

Isn't that what this ID thing is all about?

Proof of ID

[WildTurkey]

So you don't sleep?

Yes but plants shut off their respiration at night for greater efficency. Most of us snore the night away.

[MarIboro]

Must have missed that...um...what the hell is it anyway?

[bvw]

"the probability space is not isotropic,"

An inference of Intelligent Design, that would be.

[tortoise]

That's a good one, and it's in the same general area of fallacies, but not quite the same as "incorporating the continuum." Here's another example of -- ahem! -- my fallacy: you cut the cards, and then start dealing them out, one at a time. The resulting array has the awesome probability of one in 52 factorial, which is, more or less, one in 8.06581752 × 1067. However, as to any one card's chances, the odds are nowhere near as great.

The phase space may be huge, but the odds of finding a winning hand are much, much better. Which winning hand does not matter.

[WildTurkey]

If one can get people to acknowledge that the probability space is not isotropic,

A recent study showed that most people believed that a bullet shot from a curved barrel would circle back around on them.

[WildTurkey]

Must have missed that...um...what the hell is it anyway?

Click on it. If you approved by the Masters of the Universe, Earth Division, their powers will reveal to you the secret.

[bvw]

My favorite part of biology is at night. And yes -- I did fall asleep in every class. Except quantum mechanics and advanced numerical methods -- both of which the professors brutally fast pace better matched my wakeing mind.

The question of animal and vegetable is sort of Maxwell's Demon type entropy question, btw. Or one 2atHomeMom might consider. How is that? We have two gases in the same tank. One I'll label animal, the other I'll label vegetable.

Are they at equilibrium? And if at informatiomal-energy (to posit some energy-like metric that measures evolutionary advancement) equilibrium why haven't vegetables eveolved independent motion? Or why did animals?

[WildTurkey]

Or one 2atHomeMom might consider.

2atHomeMom is a dope and is probably considering which screen name to take next time.

Are they at equilibrium?

I am pretty much at equilibrium with the weeds in my yard but it was a tough two years ...

As for motion, if you don't believe plants can move, have you never seen a dandelion seed pod float in the wind headed straight for your yard?

[bvw]

Independent directed motion, like we animals are blessed with.

Yes, roots reach for water and nutrients, leaves for the sun -- tumbleweed (approach it carefully!) moves with the wind and so do your seed pods. Yet those motions are not independent.

[js1138]

It's often an error to assume that malice is necessary when stupidity is sufficient.

[js1138]

Why are some living things still sexless.

It seems like just yesterday I was being lectured by a creationist on bacterial conjugation.

Are there, in fact, any living things that have never exchanged or received genetic material?

[js1138]

Anyone that thinks plants haven't successfully evolved the ability to survive is nuts!

Again, creationist falsely assert that evolution predicts a direction of change or a specified outcome.

Until you get past that misunderstanding there is no hope.

[general_re]

....why haven't vegetables eveolved independent motion? Or why did animals?

In a nutshell, photosynthesis doesn't give you enough energy to get up and walk - you burn far more energy than the plant, and hence you have commensurately greater energy requirements.

[WildHorseCrash]

Why are some living things still sexless?

Cause they haven't found the right person yet...

[bvw]

Plants store energy, with a storge mechanism -- or even a digestive adaptation -- they could. Any backing for your hypothesis they they could not?

[grey_whiskers]

the true random odds are infinity divided by one,

Obviously you haven't watched Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy recently.

Infinity minus one is related to the infinite improbability drive.

Speaking of which, sometimes I think what these crevo threads need is a Babel fish, what with all of the talking past each other which goes on here!

Cheers!

[WildTurkey]

Plants store energy, with a storge mechanism -- or even a digestive adaptation -- they could. Any backing for your hypothesis they they could not?

Maybe one species did and it turned out to not be an advantage over other plants so that species died out.

Evolution does not focus on what can or can not happen, it focuses on what is here and how it evolved from earlier processes.