Replies

How can the theory of evolution explain the development of sexual reproduction? The probability that an organizm developed both male sexual organs and male sexual cells through mutuation in close proximity to another that developed both female organs and cells through a mutation, and that the cells and organs were compatible, and that they got the idea to combine the organs in some way, is so staggeringly low as to be laughable.

I have seen probabilitys of the order of 10^-50ish to describe some evolutionary events. Evolutionists argue that "given enough time, it will occur." But mathematicians realize that 1 x 10^-50 is actually zero for all intents and purposes. Something with zero probability can never happen regardless of the time given.

Let's take one of these probabilities. Let's assume that the probability of a species developing sexual organs as described above and then successfully reproducing is 1 x 10^-25, a conservatively high estimate in my opinion.

But let's say that means the probability is 1 x 10^-25 of it happening in any hour.

Given 100,000,000 years (876 billion hours), the probability of it happening in 876 billion hours or less could be characterized by the exponential distribution. The probability would then be 1 - exp(-(1x10^25) x 876 billion), which is still approximately zero.

How can the theory of evolution explain the development of sexual reproduction?

An Ichneumon post on this subject it's post #68):
Description of one of the many ways that sexual reproduction can arise from asexual origins.

The probability ... is so staggeringly low as to be laughable.

OK, well what is it? Please include the calculation itself and save me the next question.

Let's assume...

Let's not. Just post the math and we won't need to assume.

Don't confuse the scientists with science.

Are you into econometrics? (aside)

You know, I think it's kinda interesting that we have this gang of evo cranks who seem to exist on FR only to post evo threads--if you look at their histories, they don't have much to say about war, taxes, elections--they just come here to grind their evo-ax .

I guess FR contains a reliable pool of the Great Unwashed, where the ersatz "scientists" can come display their intellectual plumage, stroke their feathers, and leave.

It's getting to be kind of a bore.

I have seen probabilitys of the order of 10^-50ish to describe some evolutionary events. Evolutionists argue that "given enough time, it will occur." But mathematicians realize that 1 x 10^-50 is actually zero for all intents and purposes. Something with zero probability can never happen regardless of the time given.

Yet another ignorant claim that probabilities of unknown processes can be calculated. You guys need some new material.

You have evidence of 16-atom oxygen chains, I assume?

how "CAN" the ToE explain the rise of sexual reproduction and eventual sexual dimorphism?

easily enough. but I suspect you will dismiss any such explanation without consideration, so I won't bother taking a layman's stab at it.

Suppose I were to determine the number of coin flips it would take to make the odds of them all coming up heads to be 1:10^50. Then suppose I flipped a coin that many times, recording the results in order.

Would you agree that the odds of that sequence being repeated would also be 1:10^50? If so, does that mean the previous sequence of flips never happened, since it was so unlikely?

Your flaw is that you are trying to use the statistical probability of a future event to 'predict' the odds of a past event. The only odds relevant to a past event are did it happen (which means the odds that it did are 1:1) or not (odds of 0:1). If you cannot determine if it did or not, then Schrödinger's cat tells us that both are equally viable.

Throwing astronomical odds at something will never change the past.

But let's say that means the probability is 1 x 10^-25 of it happening in any hour.

That's about the same as the odds of a shuffled deck of cards coming up in the exact order they do. How many times can you shuffle a deck of cards in an hour?

How can the theory of evolution explain the development of sexual reproduction? The probability that an organizm developed both male sexual organs and male sexual cells through mutuation in close proximity to another that developed both female organs and cells through a mutation, and that the cells and organs were compatible, and that they got the idea to combine the organs in some way, is so staggeringly low as to be laughable.

Bad, strawman model.

But mathematicians realize that 1 x 10^-50 is actually zero for all intents and purposes.

No they don't. For the intent and purpose of division, you can't divide by zero.