Originally posted by twhiteheadI am going to look carefully again over your argument.
No, I didn't. You just don't understand the argument or probability. Whats more worrying is that you don't want to understand.
But let it be said that I have a similar feeling about you not wanting to understand.
But I will go back over your paragraphs.
Correction. Andrew Hamilton's paraghraphs. I assume you stand by it. Right ?
========================================
“..&feature=related ...”
But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means by this by saying that for humans to have evolved would have been fantastically improbably because it would have required ten improbable steps to happen and that means that for evolution to have occurred to evolve humans would be so fantastically improbably that it would have 'therefore' been a 'miracle' and therefore evidence for the existence of God and then the audience applauded very loudly to this thus showing both he and the general audience must have very low intelligence indeed for not spotting the obvious stupid flaw in his argument for his conclusion doesn't logically follow from his premise.
=========================================
Up to here, I think I agree with the cause of the applause.
I know you think that Atheists are the intelligencia among us.
Mr. Hamilton seem to have great confidence that his intelligence level is so superior to all the applauding ones.
==============================================
Let me elaborate; yes the odds of evolution having done exactly what it did and with that exact outcome (specifically, the creation of human kind in this case) of evolution being correctly described as “fantastically improbable”,
========================================
Okay. If that is what happened it is fantastically improbable.
===================================
but that's only because that is just ONE improbable pseudo-random outcome out of zillions of possible pseudo-random outcome each of which is improbable but collectively their probabilities add up to 100% probability i.e. it is INEVITABLE that ONE of those outcomes would have occurred thus there is no 'miracle' that whatever outcome happened is “fantastically improbable” because it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process!!!
========================================
Whitehead says I simply do not understand this, nor want to.
Evolution apprarently turned out human kind (if it is true). It could have turned out zillions of other outcomes. Any one of these other zillion outcomes could have been equally astounding.
However we are naturally only familiar with the outcome that alledgedly occured.
======================================
let me restate that in more generic terms:
if there is a process that will inevitably result in one of a zillion possible outcomes taking place but with each of those outcomes being fantastically improbable then, no matter how improbable the actual outcome, it is incorrect to call the outcome it actually gives a 'miracle' because it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process.
Here is an analogy:
I can shuffle a stack of cards and deal them out and point out the fact that the chances of dealing out that EXACT order of cards I dealt out would be vanishingly small -one in a zillion chance. But that was no miracle because I still dealt out the cards that I did and it was inevitable that what I dealt out would have a vanishingly small chance of being exactly so.
==============================================
Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ?
How about flipping a coin 100 times, which lands on its edge, neither head nor tails, 100 time in a row ? Vanishingly small probability.
How about winning Powerball six times consecutively in a row ? Vanishingly small chance of that for sure.
=====================================
And, if I had dealt the cards out slightly differently, the outcome would be totally different but about equally improbable thus it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process which therefore would not make the fantastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.
======================================
Coming back to human evolution would help me here.
I don't know card games very well.
==============================
Coming back to human evolution;
I can correctly point out that the chances of evolution doing everything EXACTLY it did and in the EXACT order it did is vanishingly small -one in a zillion chance. But that was no miracle because evolution still did whatever it did and it was inevitable that what it did would have a vanishingly small chance of being exactly so. And, if evolution did what it did even slightly differently, the outcome would be totally different (so no humans would have evolved in that case) but about equally improbable thus it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process which therefore would not make the fantastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.
Do you understand the above logic?
=====================================
I think we have to work with the evidence that we HAVE.
We do not have a sample of a zillion occurences of evolution.
What different outcomes would have insued if we went on to the other zillion variations of the process is purely speculative.
This is somewhat like the multiple universes concept. We human beings simply happen to be in the universe within which the fantastically vanishing chance of life arose. But any of those OTHER zillion universes are unique too with no life.
We know of NO OTHER universes. We have to contemplate the one sample that we do have.
We know of no other zillion activations of the evolution scenario. The ONE sample that we do have (if true) resulted in the seemingly miraculous occurence of something called life.
I am astounded at that. If not a miracle we better consider that something is going on to explain such an accident.
"But look at these zillion other outcomes of the process, when it was altered in some way. See the zillion other "miraculous" out comes ?? Gotcha!"
Umm. WHERE ? Look where ? Show me the other zillion variations of the evolution process ?
This kind of argument does nothing to dull or diminish the sense of surprise that most of us have at seeing life tumble out of the process of Evolution. The objection that we should not be surprised is too speculative without any evidence.
I think the objection is destructive to the discipline of statistical probability. If I embrace this speculative logic there is no reason to view any outcome of any probability problem as reason for surprise.
I think forensic scientists would throw up their hands and decide that no investigation need be made. After all, no outcome should be grounds for examination.
Fire Insurance Fraud detectives would shrug. Had the house burned down in a zillion of other slightly different ways, other causes would have been just as perculiar. The gasoline footprints on the rug should be no special cause of concern. In a zillion other scenarios it could have been anything else.
Whitehead says, I don't understand or want to understand. Ie. Man, the human brain, the reproductive system, life itself, coming out of this evolution process is really no cause of amazement.
If you Atheists are not impressed with the outcome of life that is your perogative. I don't buy that you Atheists are the superior intelligencia among us, and those who are impressed with the result of life, are less intelligent.
And we don't have have a zillion other executions of this long process of evolution to compare how a slightly varied version of it would have arrived at something equally surprising. We are comtemplating the available evidence that we have.
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you sure I said that peguins evolved from birds that can fly?
If you and the super majority in the scientific community think that, I guess
it is a fact not a theory, not a belief in your mind. You are a true believer I
guess there is no debating you on that topic.
Are you sure I said that peguins evolved from birds that can fly?
Kelly
100%. So how can birds evolve for life in the sea but mammals. Explain to me these restrictions.
You are a true believer I guess there is no debating you on that topic.
I accept the evidence from a whole host of scientific fields. You think humans lived with dinosaurs, what exactly is there to debate?
Originally posted by jaywillWell lets see who chickens out first. 🙂
I am going to look carefully again over your argument.
But let it be said that I have a similar feeling about you not wanting to understand.
Lets test your knowledge of probability, consider the following:
Which is more likely:
1. You winning the lottery six times in a row.
2. The following six people winning the lottery in the order given: James Connelly, John Jackson, Gordon Winston, Kenneth Smith, Vanessa Williams, Jane Merredith.
Assume that both you and the above six people all bought one ticket in each lottery.
Consider also :
A. The probability of six winners winning the lottery (over six lotteries).
B. The probability of the specific list of six people that actually won the lottery, winning the lottery when considered after the fact.
Originally posted by twhitehead==========================
Well lets see who chickens out first. 🙂
Lets test your knowledge of probability, consider the following:
Which is more likely:
1. You winning the lottery six times in a row.
2. The following six people winning the lottery in the order given: James Connelly, John Jackson, Gordon Winston, Kenneth Smith, Vanessa Williams, Jane Merredith.
Assume that ...[text shortened]... of six people that actually won the lottery, winning the lottery when considered after the fact.
Well lets see who chickens out first.
=========================
What's that suppose to mean ? If one has nothing else to do for the rest of his life but to go back and forth on this Internet argument, he has not "chickened out" ?
Some kind of test of endurance here ?
=====================================
Lets test your knowledge of probability, consider the following:
================================
Greater and greater knowlede of probabity will cause a person to be totally unimpressed that a evolutionary process went from bacteria to human brain ? Just get enough knowledge of probability and you become immune to all sense of surprise ?
Lay out my course curriculum. What classes will lead to this kind of atheism ?
================================
Which is more likely:
1. You winning the lottery six times in a row.
2. The following six people winning the lottery in the order given: James Connelly, John Jackson, Gordon Winston, Kenneth Smith, Vanessa Williams, Jane Merredith.
Assume that both you and the above six people all bought one ticket in each lottery.
==================================
If I wanted to be rigorous about it, I would have to have more information to tell you. Wouldn't I ?
Ie. How many more people beside the six winners played. The odds of one correct pick.
What IS your point ?
=========================
Consider also :
A. The probability of six winners winning the lottery (over six lotteries).
B. The probability of the specific list of six people that actually won the lottery, winning the lottery when considered after the fact.
==========================
I didn't get the point on the priliminary example, let alone the "also" consideration.
This debate and video below is somewhat on Origin of Life. I know a mighty chorus will arise "Origins has nothing to do with Evolution!" But the probability discussion in it, is relevant IMO.
Take your "simplest" life form. Its random arrangement has a hugely low probability of arising at random is really impressively thin. It will be hard for you to undermind this realization.
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
[b]========================================
“..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related ...”
But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means by this by saying that for humans to have evolved would have been fantastically improbably because it would have required ten improbable steps surprising. We are comtemplating the available evidence that we have.
-I admit that I think I made that far too long.
“....Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ? ...”
No, just with outcomes that;
1, come from a process that INEVITABLY (but, strictly speaking, it can also be “probably” or even merely “plausibly”; but lets for the sake of simplicity here just stick to “inevitably&rdquo😉 gives an outcome that will be a "vanishingly small chance" event.
2, the outcome must have no "vanishingly small chance" pattern or repetition that cannot be explained by the process/processes that gave rise to that outcome (note I only added this condition 2 here in preparation for what your next quote is and wouldn't have otherwise made it explicit )
“...How about flipping a coin 100 time which lands on its edge, neither head nor tails, 100 time in a row ? Vanishingly small probability. ...”
yes, it has a Vanishingly small probability, just like any other particular outcome of flipping the coin 100 times. However, the chances of a statistically significant pattern or repetition occurring in the outcome of flipping a coin 100 time (such as the coin repeatedly landing on its edge) can ALSO a vanishingly small probability which is not to be confused with the probability of a outcome (regardless of whether it has a statistically significant pattern or repetition) having a vanishingly small probability of being EXACTLY whatever it is.
In addition, in your example, the statistically significant repetition of the coin always landing on its edge is NOT explained by the process (the flipping of the coin) that gave rise to that outcome. This may make me suspect that that outcome was not random but was caused by something other than merely the known process that led to it i.e. the flipping of the coin. So my condition 2, above applies.
Note that the outcome of human kind from evolution doesn't involve any pattern or repetition that is NOT explained by the known process of evolution. So in that case my stated condition 2 does NOT apply to that.
“...How about winning Powerball six times consecutively in a row ? Vanishingly small chance of that for sure. ...”
same kind of argument applies with that as with your coin example.
“....I think we have to work with the evidence that we HAVE.
We do not have a sample of a zillion occurences of evolution. ...”
...but we have many examples of outcomes of evolution -both in terms of the numbers of species and the numbers of local adaptive variations within each species.
And we have much evidence (proof in fact) that evolution has occurred.
“...What different outcomes would have ensued if we went on to the other zillion variations of the process is purely speculative. ...”
-yes, that is correct; and what different outcomes would have ensued if we went on to the other zillion variations of the process of dealing out a pack of cards is also “purely speculative”. That would not be a reason to think that the process, whether it be evolution or dealing cards or whatever the process is, is itself any less probable (if that is what you imply/think here).
“...We know of NO OTHER universes. We have to contemplate the one sample that we do have. ...”
and what we have is evidence of evolution that must have happened and must have happened to many species -I would say that makes it a “good” sample.
“...We know of no other zillion activations of the evolution scenario. The ONE sample that we do have (if true) resulted in the seemingly miraculous occurence of something called life. ...”
NO, evolution is NOT a theory of the origins of life.
“...Umm. WHERE ? Look where ? Show me the other zillion variations of the evolution process ? ...”
we have many observed examples of microevolution process and, as for macroevolution process, we have much evidence (proof in fact) that it has happened and many species which we deduce must have been the result of it.
“...I think the objection is destructive to the discipline of statistical probability. If I embrace this speculative logic there is no reason to view any outcome of any probability problem as reason for surprise. ...”
NO, that is NOT so! -you have misunderstood my implied logic here; read my earlier comment above that states my two conditions for my analogy to work. If the outcome contains some statistically significant repetition NOT explained by the process that gave rise to it then I am saying you SHOULD be surprised!
“...I don't buy that you Atheists are the superior intelligencia among us, and those who are impressed with the result of life, are less intelligent. ...”
where did I say that theists are less intelligent or we are superior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton===========================
I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
-I admit that I think I made that far too long.
“....Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ? ...”
No, just with outcomes that;
1, come from a process that INEVITABLY (but, strictly speaking, it can also be “probably” or even merel ...[text shortened]... ior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.[/b]
where did I say that theists are less intelligent or we are superior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.
==============================
You said that the applause of the audience showed that they were not too intelligent.
Originally posted by jaywillNo, not really. It shouldn't take very long at all.
Some kind of test of endurance here?
Lay out my course curriculum. What classes will lead to this kind of atheism ?
I am working on it, though atheism is not required, all I am demonstrating is that your argument from improbability is based on a poor understanding of probability.
If I wanted to be [b]rigorous about it, I would have to have more information to tell you. Wouldn't I ?[/b]
No. Probability is based on the information available and some assumptions.
In this case, assume there were the same number of players in each lottery, and that the method for picking a winner is purely random.
What IS your point ?
You find out when you get the correct answer.
I didn't get the point on the priliminary example, let alone the "also" consideration.
Well lets start with the preliminary example then. What is your answer?
Take your "simplest" life form. Its random arrangement has a hugely low probability of arising at random is really impressively thin. It will be hard for you to undermind this realization.
Its remarkably easy really. You simply don't know what the "simplest" life form actually is. To make a solid argument from probability you would have to know that.
If you claim that the simplest life form you know could not have appeared at random, (if I accept your calculation) I can simply claim that it probably evolved from something simpler.
What you also don't know is the number of possible 'tries' that were made before the first life form arose. How many suitable planets are there in the universe? How many suitable chemical reactions took place over the millenia? How many different ways could life have arisen? I bet you cant even estimate most of those numbers.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton======================================
I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
-I admit that I think I made that far too long.
“....Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ? ...”
No, just with outcomes that;
1, come from a process that INEVITABLY (but, strictly speaking, it can also be “probably” or even merel ...[text shortened]... ior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.[/b]
I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument -I admit that I think I made that far too long.
======================================
And I noticed that you apparently did watch the video. Likewise, thanks.
Originally posted by twhitehead===================================
No, not really. It shouldn't take very long at all.
[b]Lay out my course curriculum. What classes will lead to this kind of atheism ?
I am working on it, though atheism is not required, all I am demonstrating is that your argument from improbability is based on a poor understanding of probability.
If I wanted to be [b]rigorous about it, nt ways could life have arisen? I bet you cant even estimate most of those numbers.[/b]
No. Probability is based on the information available and some assumptions.
==================================
If you wanted to get down to actual odds, to tell you what the probability characteristics were, we would need more numerical info.
=======================================
Take your "simplest" life form. Its random arrangement has a hugely low probability of arising at random is really impressively thin. It will be hard for you to undermind this realization.
Its remarkably easy really. You simply don't know what the "simplest" life form actually is. To make a solid argument from probability you would have to know that.
=======================================
So you just said what I said. Need more information to be rigorous about it.
====================================
If you claim that the simplest life form you know could not have appeared at random, (if I accept your calculation) I can simply claim that it probably evolved from something simpler.
================================
Yes you could say that. This goes back to dealing with the evidence we have. That may change tomorrow. But we should deal with what is available now.
That's what scienctists would do. Don't you think ?
=======================================
What you also don't know is the number of possible 'tries' that were made before the first life form arose.
=====================================
Once again. You seem to be saying what I just said. To be rigourous more info is needed. That is if you want to get down to solid odds.
======================================
How many suitable planets are there in the universe?
======================================
We know of ONE. I'd be as thrilled as the next guy for them to discover another.
We know of ONE - Earth.
=====================================
How many suitable chemical reactions took place over the millenia? How many different ways could life have arisen? I bet you cant even estimate most of those numbers.
============================================
Of course absolute proof requires absolute knowledge. None of us have that.
Not even you.
I don't know twhitehead, I still don't get a "ho hum" when I think about the existence of this thing called life.
Maybe 8 to 10 Phds. in Statistics would remedy that. huh?
Originally posted by jaywillIn this case, I have given you all the information required to answer the question.
If you wanted to get down to actual odds, to tell you what the probability characteristics were, we would need more numerical info.
So, do you know the answer, or is it too hard for you?
So you just said what I said. Need more information to be rigorous about it.
As I said, probability includes some assumptions (usually that certain components are statistically random). So, for your argument to be valid, yes we need to know whether or not what it claims is statistically random actually is, so we need more information.
Yes you could say that. This goes back to dealing with the evidence we have. That may change tomorrow. But we should deal with what is available now.
We have no information available now except that life did evolve. That to me, is strong evidence against your argument.
Once again. You seem to be saying what I just said. To be rigourous more info is needed. That is if you want to get down to solid odds.
Yes. Except in the question I asked you, actual odds were not asked for, what I asked for was a comparison of odds.
We know of ONE. I'd be as thrilled as the next guy for them to discover another.
We know of ONE - Earth.
Exactly. So you really have no idea how many there are. What we do know is that there are potentially billions.
Of course absolute proof requires absolute knowledge. None of us have that.
I am not asking for absolute proof. I am merely pointing out that your argument from probability fails as it is made whilst having total ignorance of the figures involved.
Maybe 8 to 10 Phds. in Statistics would remedy that. huh?
You won't even need a degree. All you need is to understand one simple concept: your skepticism is based on your belief that the outcome is special. It is equivalent to you being amazed when you win the lottery. When you recognize that someone must win the lottery, and that you are not special, then your problem will have been remedied.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=========================
I appreciate that you actually bothered to read through my very long argument 🙂
-I admit that I think I made that far too long.
“....Would this analogy work for ANY "vanishingly small chance" event ? ...”
No, just with outcomes that;
1, come from a process that INEVITABLY (but, strictly speaking, it can also be “probably” or even merel ior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.[/b]
NO, evolution is NOT a theory of the origins of life.
===============================
You know, I think some of you Evolutionists should stop saying this. You know what I think you should say instead ?
You should say "We have not yet figured out the origin of life problem."
Honestly, I think that is a perfectly legitimate answer which I can respect.
Darwin's Book "Origin of Species" naturally raises the question to the reader "What was the origin of the first species?"
Rather than you guys always running away from that question, distancing your theory from that thorny issue, I would have more respect for it if you just said - "We have not yet figured out how the process started life. We may get the answer. Stay tuned."
Originally posted by jaywillThat “audience” does NOT equate with “theists” for there would be many theists NOT in that particular “audience” intelligent enough to see the obvious flaw in that speaker's logic. I do NOT deny that there are theists more intellegent than I. I do NOT claim nor ever done so nor implied that “theists” are less intelligent than I am for that would be just a silly sweeping generalisation.
[b]===========================
where did I say that theists are less intelligent or we are superior to theists? I would not claim nor believe such a ludicrous sweeping generalisation.
==============================
You said that the applause of the audience showed that they were not too intelligent.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywill“...You should say "We have not yet figured out the origin of life problem." ...”
[b]=========================
NO, evolution is NOT a theory of the origins of life.
===============================
You know, I think some of you Evolutionists should stop saying this. You know what I think you should say instead ?
You should say "We have not yet figured out the origin of life problem."
Honestly, I think ...[text shortened]... yet figured out how the process started life. We may get the answer. Stay tuned." [/b][/b]
[off topic] no, science has already pretty much researched abiogenesis and worked out much of its probable details ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#RNAworld ) This of course, has nothing to do with evolution [/off topic]