Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
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.
So you don't sleep?
Isn't that what this ID thing is all about?
Yes but plants shut off their respiration at night for greater efficency. Most of us snore the night away.
Must have missed that...um...what the hell is it anyway?
An inference of Intelligent Design, that would be.
The phase space may be huge, but the odds of finding a winning hand are much, much better. Which winning hand does not matter.
A recent study showed that most people believed that a bullet shot from a curved barrel would circle back around on them.
Click on it. If you approved by the Masters of the Universe, Earth Division, their powers will reveal to you the secret.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Cause they haven't found the right person yet...
Plants store energy, with a storge mechanism -- or even a digestive adaptation -- they could. Any backing for your hypothesis they they could not?
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!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.