Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not questioning it happening by chance.

10 royal flushes in a row? the odds of three in a row are less than one in twenty thousand trillion

You work in the fraud dept and you tell your boss luck is more probable than cheating?!

 

[Aset's Flames]

Let me explain this to you mathematically:

If I rolled a standard die.

1 = 16.6...% chance
2 = 16.6...% chance
3 = 16.6...% chance
4 = 16.6...% chance
5 = 16.6...% chance
6 = 16.6...% chance

But for me to roll the same number twice in a row it is: 2.76.......% chance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you really think that things have never happened in the universe where the odds where against it.

well if I had a nickel for every question nobody responded to on this forum...but OK

Yes things happen with odds against them, I would bet everything that nobody ever played 10 royal flushes in a row by chance

And instead believe in something which not only has no evidance but contradicts itself?

are you talking about multiverses or M theory?

 

[Aset's Flames]

10 royal flushes in a row? the odds of three in a row are less than one in twenty thousand trillion

You work in the fraud dept and you tell your boss luck is more probable than cheating?!

With that yes, because their is evidence that something could change the probabilities. But in reality there is no such evidance, Aset can but as she has not shown herself to non-Asetians then scientist have no reason to believe in her and neither do you.

However your own deity contradicts itself and you try to insist that you beilive in it for a logical reason.

 

[Aset's Flames]

well if I had a nickel for every question nobody responded to on this forum...but OK

Yes things happen with odds against them, I would bet everything that nobody ever played 10 royal flushes in a row by chance



are you talking about multiverses or M theory?

I'm talking about your deity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

With that yes, because their is evidence that something could change the probabilities. But in reality there is no such evidance, Aset can but as she has not shown herself to non-Asetians then scientist have no reason to believe in her and neither do you.

However your own deity contradicts itself and you try to insist that you beilive in it for a logical reason.

to be clear, you said yes?

you think luck is more probable than cheating- when a gambler plays 10 royal flushes in a row?!

 

[columbus]

Yes things happen with odds against them, I would bet everything that nobody ever played 10 royal flushes in a row by chance

I'd take your bet.
Because out of all the poker games ever played the odds of one player having such a bizarrely improbable winning streak at some point isn't that hard. There have been trillions of games.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd take your bet.
Because out of all the poker games ever played the odds of one player having such a bizarrely improbable winning streak at some point isn't that hard. There have been trillions of games.
Tom

649,740 ^10 Tom... that's a wee bit more than mere trillions!

 

[Aset's Flames]

to be clear, you said yes?

you think luck is more probable than cheating- when a gambler plays 10 royal flushes in a row?!

I think that when it comes to the universe luck is more probable than cheating based on common knowledge because their would be no reason to know of anything that CAN cheat.

Also you seem to ignore my comments about your deity becuase you cannot rebuke them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think that when it comes to the universe luck is more probable than cheating based on common knowledge because their would be no reason to know of anything that CAN cheat.

Also you seem to ignore my comments about your deity becuase you cannot rebuke them.

You haven't answered my original question yet, which I have asked you several times.

one more try-

a gambler plays 10 royal flushes in a row

which do you think more probable- cheating or luck?

simple question- anybody here brave enough to answer?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think that when it comes to the universe luck is more probable than cheating based on common knowledge because their would be no reason to know of anything that CAN cheat.

Also you seem to ignore my comments about your deity becuase you cannot rebuke them.

OK got to run for the weekend- but here's the point

Of course this analogy is not perfect, no analogy is-
the two major problems being

It grants you 100% a fully functional random mechanism fully proven to be capable of producing the result.

We have no knowledge of any such exo-cosmic auto dealer- far less one that can accidentally deal out this universe.


It also presents a situation where any cheating (ID) is strictly prohibited, and great lengths are gone to to try to prevent it.

Again we have no such knowlegde of an exo-cosmic security system preventing ID from interfereing with the hypothetical auto-dealer!

But even with the analogy heavily biased towards chance, of course most people suspect cheating.
Becasue it's not about the even improbability of chance, it's about the greater probability of rigging the outcome.

Must go but I appreciate the civil debate and I promise to respond later-
feel free to tell me why you think God is contradictory also

have a good weekend

 

[outhouse]

my original question yet, which I have asked you several times.

You never answer questions, because credible answers put you in the corner. So you just cannot answer.

Refuse knowledge ? yep you do this al the time

 

[Parsimony]

simple question- anybody here brave enough to answer?

Since the odds can actually be calculated for card games, I'm guessing that cheating is more likely than chance.

 

[outhouse]

feel free to tell me why you think God is contradictory also

Because mythology cannot be substantiated. The concept does not even scientifically exist, let alone for anyone to start attributing any part of nature to it, let alone all of it

 

[Skwim]

You haven't answered my original question yet, which I have asked you several times.

one more try-

a gambler plays 10 royal flushes in a row

which do you think more probable- cheating or luck?

simple question- anybody here brave enough to answer?

Actually, anyone who played 10 royal flushes in a row would be incredibly dumb. And lucky to be alive after the third or fourth royal flush.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Macroevolution has not been observed. Yes, i have seen the above articles many times such as the lizards. These lizards just changed size, head shape and colour etc., but they were still morphologically clearly lizards. They didn't evolve into something else: "As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force", head shape changes has also been observed in human populations within historic times, but the end product was still human.

That's likely the extent of observable. macro-change in our short lifetime, yet it does prove that givin enough time and environmental change, things can become pronounced enough so that a new branch is formed leading to speciation that requires a new classification.

Another would be that involving regressive/dormant genes where past evolutionary traits are re-awakened providing ample proof involving the course of macroevolution in a givin species. It's already been done.

 

[Aset's Flames]

OK got to run for the weekend- but here's the point

Of course this analogy is not perfect, no analogy is-
the two major problems being

It grants you 100% a fully functional random mechanism fully proven to be capable of producing the result.

We have no knowledge of any such exo-cosmic auto dealer- far less one that can accidentally deal out this universe.


It also presents a situation where any cheating (ID) is strictly prohibited, and great lengths are gone to to try to prevent it.

Again we have no such knowlegde of an exo-cosmic security system preventing ID from interfereing with the hypothetical auto-dealer!

But even with the analogy heavily biased towards chance, of course most people suspect cheating.
Becasue it's not about the even improbability of chance, it's about the greater probability of rigging the outcome.

Must go but I appreciate the civil debate and I promise to respond later-
feel free to tell me why you think God is contradictory also

have a good weekend

I have stated that yes it is more than likely not chance in the poker game becuase we can manipulate it.

Good God =/= Slaughtering Innocents.

 

[Ouroboros]

There's 1:175,000,000 chance winning on Lotto.

Still the CA Lottery has on average 10 winners each year since its beginning 25 years ago.

 

[Lyndon]

That's because 1,750,000,000 tickets are bought.

 

[David M]

I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is here - we agree entirely on the 'appearance of sudden planting'
I understand he and other evolutionists speculate various theories to try to account for this observation- but - once again- the observation remains. No way around it.

No, the observation does not remain. That observation was true (but still what you want it to mean) only for a short while and resulted from no one looking at the older rocks in much detail, since then there has been a lot of research done on cambrian and pre-cambrain rocks and the "sudden planting" is now no such thing, it is once again an evolution from simple organisms to more complex organisms.