It is well-known that in science, alternative hypotheses often happen to be in competition, but the point here is that a scientific hypothesis often cannot be tested in isolation but must be tested relative to other hypotheses. The fact that P(complex structures|Darwinian evolution) is extremely small does not tell us anything about Darwinian evolutionary theory. It does not make evolutionary theory implausible … science education needs to explain to students why an event being extremely improbable, given the mechanisms postulated by a scientific theory, does not undermine this theory in any way.
In other words, we can construct a silly theory—such as that all of biology, and everything else for that matter, arose on its own—and so long as there are no competing theories then it is a fact. This is another example of how evolution has corrupted our thinking.
In other words, we can construct a silly theory—such as that all of biology, and everything else for that matter, arose on its own—and so long as there are no competing theories then it is a fact.
ReplyDeleteBut there is a competing theory that is not the least bit silly: everything that exists (including all of biology) was brought into being by a demiurge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
What's the probability of that?
"Now saying"? It's hardly new. You've written about this loads of times.
ReplyDeleteAnd I still doubt that you understand the difference between a bayesian probability and likelihood. Just like your minions.
So, let me give you guys an example to illustrate this:
Let's go back five hundred years in time. Pretend that you are one of your ancestors. Now, estimate the likelihood that five hundred years later YOU (the exact you that exists now) would be born. And I mean YOU. Born to your, as we now know, parents, who were in turn born to their parents etc. You'd have to estimate things like people meeting, mating and managing to swap the correct genes from the correct sperm. In order to estimate this you'd need to know something about the conditions that your future descendants would be subject to. Will there be war, famine etc. The point is, the likelihood that YOU will be born is SMALL.
However, what is the probability that YOU were born because your ancestors managed to meet and mate? Pretty high, I would say. I'd even call it a fact.
And no, just to preempt some of the sillier comments, I'm not saying that this makes evolution a fact. What I am saying is that using a likelihood to say something about a probability, the way you IDists frequently do, is silly and wrong.
And since there are no competing theories that can generate probabilities, then their theory, with its astronomically low probabilities, wins:
ReplyDeleteSure there is. We could compare it to pure chance without any evolution. Which one is more probable then?
In other words, we can construct a silly theory—such as that all of biology, and everything else for that matter, arose on its own—and so long as there are no competing theories then it is a fact.
Yes, that is exactly why evolution is called a fact. Oh, sorry, my mistake. What is a fact is that your statement is a lie.
Again, as I illustrated here, probably is only useful in the sense that you're attempting to use it when you know all the possible outcomes, such as Russian Roulette.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't even acknowledged this at all, yet alone presented any criticism of it.
For example, are you claiming that you somehow know there is only one set of proteins that could perform any particular role in all possible forms of life that could have evolved?
If so, how do you know this? What evidence such an assumption based on? Please be specific.
CH: And since there are no competing theories that can generate probabilities, then their theory, with its astronomically low probabilities.
ReplyDeleteExcept, we haven't even established that evolution is the sort of theory in which one could conclude it's probability is astronomically low.
Nor are papers like this an attempt to prove evolution is true based on probabilities. Any such assumption is a projection of creationists who are attempting to use probability to discredit evolutionary theory.
In fact, some papers are designed to illustrate that even IF evolution was the sort of theory where this sort of probability would be applicable, creationists are calculating the probabilities wrong.
So, not only is the numbers game not worth playing in the first place, but creationist wouldn't even be playing it right if it was.
In other words, we can construct a silly theory—such as that all of biology, and everything else for that matter, arose on its own—and so long as there are no competing theories then it is a fact.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why darwinists can never produce the alleged 'mountain of evidence' for their myth.