An evolutionary probability
10 Oct 2012, 2:48 am
LabTech wrote:
Picking up on a post from quite a while ago, Professor Vikram Singy's calculation of the likelihood/probability of your typical human enzyme resulting from random molecular encounters concludes that it is extremely (1x10^40,000) improbable.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
Since evolution is a fact, it appears that Prof Singy's calculations are drivel!
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
10 Oct 2012, 3:06 am
TallyMan wrote:
LabTech wrote:
Picking up on a post from quite a while ago, Professor Vikram Singy's calculation of the likelihood/probability of your typical human enzyme resulting from random molecular encounters concludes that it is extremely (1x10^40,000) improbable.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
Since evolution is a fact, it appears that Prof Singy's calculations are drivel!
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
10 Oct 2012, 8:17 am
LabTech wrote:
Picking up on a post from quite a while ago, Professor Vikram Singy's calculation of the likelihood/probability of your typical human enzyme resulting from random molecular encounters concludes that it is extremely (1x10^40,000) improbable.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
His calculation is quite possibly correct but also irrelevent. Human enzymes aren't built by random molecular encounters but rather by reading the "assembly instructions" in our cells. These assembly instructions evolved from simpler assembly instructions which evolved from yet simpler assembly instructions and so on back about 3.5 billion years. Complexity grew over time. Simple chance encounters >3.5 billion years ago allowed minor complexity to form and that built up over time. It seems improbably but you can see the same thing with computer programs that make fractal images. Reasonably simple equations piled on top of each other over and over lead to very complex images.
10 Oct 2012, 10:40 am
LabTech wrote:
Picking up on a post from quite a while ago, Professor Vikram Singy's calculation of the likelihood/probability of your typical human enzyme resulting from random molecular encounters concludes that it is extremely (1x10^40,000) improbable.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
It has been a long time since this challenge was posted at this site; how about someone giving a serious response to his calculations?! Talk about drivel!
How can theists be the ones accused of taking a leap of faith in light of these stats? It seems plain that the grand leap of faith is more correctly associated with those placing their faith in Darwinian theory.
1x10^40,000 likelihood?! Is that the type of data on which to base a position? The many state lotteries in our country are a sure thing compared to the odds of that enzyme forming, much less a cell, etc., etc., etc.
A) Doing probability calculations after the fact is pointless.
B) If we're talking "leap of faith" we know that Darwinian evolution happened, it's more or less fact at this point. However, in order to calculate the odds for an intelligent being orchestrating the design of humankind, you'd have to calculate the odds of such a being resulting from the same processes that created humankind. After all, the odds for an eternal being is 0, since such a thing has never been observed, I.E. 1x (infinate)^(infinate) and the same goes for the odds of such a being actually resulting from those processes.
What you are engaging in is a fallacious argument and I'll show you mathematically why.
Richard Dawkins state that human beings are about 200.000 years old, Francis Collins say 100.000 so, let's even that out at 150.000 years old. If we assume that an average human lifespan throughout that period was 40 years, that makes up about 3750 generations.
In order for you to write your drivel, the following had to happen:
Your father and mother had to meet, and engage in (most likely) repeated sexual acts.
So did your grandparents,
So did your great grandparents,
So did your great - Great grandparents,
Their parents,
their parents and so on until we reach the about 150.000 years into the past.
Now, a male ejaculation contains an average of 225 million sperm, the fertilization process resulting from either one of them resulting in a different genetic configuration, thus a different human being.
*WARNING THIS WILL BE LONG WINDED*
The basic formula for calculating a probability is Number of events / number of possibilities. For instance, the formula for calculating the odds of rolling 2 with a normal 6 sided dice is 1/6. The odds for calculating the odds of multiple events happening is P(e)xP(e) etc
So, if we start with the odds of your folks having you, if we assume that they only had sex once was 1/225.000.000 = which is 4.444444444e-9. Which, if I can translate from my graphics calculator correctly, means 0,000000004 of you being born.
In order to move forward, still assuming that your grandparents only had sex once as well to conceive your mother and father, the calculation would be in essence:
0,000000004*0,000000004 = 1,6e-19 or (assuming I'm translating correctly, 0,000000000000000000016. If you want to, you can keep doing this, but you should realize by now that the odds that the professor calculated for humans existing are a heck of a lot higher than for you existing, your parents existing, your grandparents existing and a hell of a lot higher than all of you existing.
