Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both

Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[b_sharp]

Nope!

[xzins]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

[b_sharp]

"disagree. you want the ticket with letters "a-b-i-o-g-e-n-e-s-i-s" sequence to win. That's the winner you chose. I've heard it's got about 10^150+ chances to lose and only one to win. Even giving you 15 billion years your ticket has effectively zero chance of winning.

Nope! I want one of 1x10^100 out of 1x10^150. I also want 1x10^10 concurrent draws. By the way, the probability for the ticket 'abiogenesis' to win assuming 26 letters is 1/26^11 or 2.7x10^-16. The probability to lose, for what it's worth is 1 -(2.7x10^-16).

On a more sober note, how the heck do you get superscript from html?

[xzins]

You're saying that if there are calculations made in GR and the results don't match reality then: something's wrong in your calculations or something's being missed.

Is that it?

[xzins]

Well, at least it was a short answer. :>)

I disagree, of course.

[PatrickHenry]

I've seen that before. It's nonsense. He's working entirely with the notion of random assembly of DNA. He knows nothing of organic chemistry. Some combinations are inevitable, and some are impossible. He ignores all of this. Worthless stuff. Really. I suggest you read an introductory text about organic chemistry. If you do, you'll be much better able to evaluate nonsense when you see it. If you don't take the trouble to become informed, you're at the mercy of any clown who makes a claim on the internet.

[spunkets]

"The phrase "effecitively zero" is effectively meaningless."

I wouldn't say that. Quite often, you have to make a choice on where you draw the line. That means I've arbitrarily chosen some region between a point close to zero, but not zero, and zero. Anything in that range will be considered zero. The same could be done for 1. This is normal for T/F type questions... 0, or 1.

[spunkets]

"You're saying that if there are calculations made in GR and the results don't match reality then: something's wrong in your calculations or something's being missed.
Is that it?

right.

[xzins]

(sup)....(/sup)

(sub)....(/sub)

Substitute < > for ( )

[xzins]

If your calculations don't match reality then (1) your math or logic could be wrong.

OR

(2) You could be missing that the model (GR?) is wrong.
(3) You could be missing the outside influence of an intelligent force.

[xzins]

The odds are seriously against my picking up an organic chemistry book. (about 10¹⁵⁰ :>)

[spunkets]

If your calculations don't match reality then

(1) your math or logic could be wrong.

OR

(2) You could be missing that the model (GR?) is wrong.
(3) You could be missing the outside influence of an intelligent force.

Yes

(GR=general relativity)note GR could be incomplete(knowledge and understanding)

[Gumlegs]

Your mission - as well as all so-called evolutionists - is to start reading/viewing these and start thinking outside that box you have walled yourself into:

Ah! I'm an "evolutionist." And I have a "mission." Oh, boy! Nothing like a mission to get the ol' juices running.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel C. Dennett

Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson

Icons Of Evolution DVD ~ Brian Boorujy

Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth;

The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching;

The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor;

The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix;

Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen;

Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and

Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman.

DARWINS BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION by Michael J. Behe

What, nothing from this millenium?

No "Darwin on Trial"? Tsk, tsk.

[xzins]

OK, now your point that you were making with that was what? Or was that the point?

If so, then yes, I see it now.

[atlaw]

effectively zero probability is little different than zero probability. We're saying it has a overwhelmingly remote to zero chance of showing up.

Effectively zero is by its very nature not zero. If you are calculating the probability of a singular event within a singular set of variables (i.e., my individual chances of winning the lottery), then perhaps "effectively zero" has some meaning in a pedantic way.

But my chances are still "not zero" (even if "effectively zero"). The variables not considered in my individual case are, however, the very variables that make the lottery a viable revenue generator. It will be won at some point by someone. Hence, the "gut reaction" purchase of tickets by the population of individuals who otherwise have an "effectively zero" chance of winning (and consequently money from suckers for the education fund).

Applying a very rough though similar analysis (including the suckers, who may be thought of as the extinctees) to the process of evolution and speciation, the variables that you are not considering (gross duration, population densities, widely variable genetic mutations across a population occurring simultaneously, simultaneous population dispersal across a range of abutting and blending ecosystems, simultaneous and widely variable selectivity within these variable ecosystems by way of food source, food collection ability, and breeding propensity, etc., etc.) render evolution and speciation considerably more than a "not zero" event, and indeed an "effectively probable" event (my apologies to spunket).

[b_sharp]

Thanks. But did you have to be so clear? I was waiting for my paper to explain things well enough for people to understand.;->

No worries. At the rate I write it won't be done for weeks.

[b_sharp]

Thanks. I think I will.

I'm getting quite the headache.;)

[spunkets]

"OK, now your point that you were making with that was what? Or was that the point?
If so, then yes, I see it now.

OK, so if you conclude something is missing, you have 2 choices. The choice is between physics and an intel force.

[xzins]

The lottery is won because they carefully ensure an appropriate number of tickets will be sold relative to the possible combinations of numbers.

If they sold just one ticket,then it'd be a long, long wait.

And if it is you hoping to win, then think that each year there are at most 52 winners and in a decade just 520.

I can safely predict that YOU will not win.

[xzins]

If my model isn't working, then yes, it could be my understanding of the physics is wrong, or it could be some outside intelligence is toying with the results.

If we'd ruled out that the math or logic wasn't done correctly, then odds are with the physics being wrong, but we cannot rule out an outside influence.