Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it doesn't.

Epigenetics is the study of how different environments result in different expressions of genes. These are generally mitigated by the presence of various chemicals (especially in utero) and not because the genes are choosing which to select. Still deterministic mechanisms. Epigenetics does not change the DNA in the way that random mutations due during the process of reproduction.

If the gene can be turned off and on, then in principle the gene can also be removed or added. If one can walk, then one can also run, or at least it would be very surprising if one weren't able to.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Which type? Algorithmic? Algebraic? Measure-theoretic? Combinatorial? Quantum mechanical? Set-theoretic? Nonstochastic? ML-randomness? Irreducible? Decision-theoretic? Or did you really believe that there is some agreed upon definition of random that can serve as a foundation to your argument?


You absolutely would.



1) You wouldn't
2) 1/0 is undefined
3) There is always a chance to determine a probability
4) Probabilities of 0 don't mean impossible and probabilities of 1 don't mean certain (hence the change in terminology from measure theory/integration theory in general such as a.e (almost everywhere) to a.s. or "almost surely").
5) Randomness isn't required for improbable or impossible, and the two aren't really very related. It is virtually impossible to flip a billion coins and obtain a sequence of all heads, but equally virtually impossible to obtain any other sequence.
6) If you can't determine probabilities, you have no measure of randomness. If you can measure, characterize, or otherwise quantify randomness, then you immediately have the ability to determine probabilities.
7) I'm bored. There are free sources on probability theory, logic, etc., out there, from Harvard courses to free textbooks (I've even gone to the trouble of trying to evaluate the best free sources in these and other areas: Math Books/Resources for Free and for Learners and in particular see the post Package 2: Probability & Statistics)

It's all handwaving. We get the 10^99 numbers etc., when calculating the probability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Anybody who doesn't see that doesn't even understand about the number of possible combinations you can make with 4 bases, and about a million slots or whatever.

 

[Desert Snake]

Which type? Algorithmic? Algebraic? Measure-theoretic? Combinatorial? Quantum mechanical? Set-theoretic? Nonstochastic? ML-randomness? Irreducible? Decision-theoretic? Or did you really believe that there is some agreed upon definition of random that can serve as a foundation to your argument?


You absolutely would.



1) You wouldn't

2) 1/0 is undefined

That's why I wrote 'unknown'.

3) There is always a chance to determine a probability

4) Probabilities of 0 don't mean impossible and probabilities of 1 don't mean certain (hence the change in terminology from measure theory/integration theory in general such as a.e (almost everywhere) to a.s. or "almost surely").

5) Randomness isn't required for improbable or impossible

Where did I say that it was

, and the two aren't really very related. It is virtually impossible to flip a billion coins and obtain a sequence of all heads, but equally virtually impossible to obtain any other sequence.

doesn't matter, we have the ''sequence'', /coin flips/, to compare; your statement doesn't discredit my argument, if anything it bolsters it.

6) If you can't determine probabilities, you have no measure of randomness. If you can measure, characterize, or otherwise quantify randomness, then you immediately have the ability to determine probabilities.

/0/ isn't quantifying randomness, that's why you end up with most improbable in the real world model.

7) I'm bored. There are free sources on probability theory, logic, etc., out there, from Harvard courses to free textbooks (I've even gone to the trouble of trying to evaluate the best free sources in these and other areas: Math Books/Resources for Free and for Learners and in particular see the post Package 2: Probability & Statistics)

doesn't even seem like your presenting an argument, I can't tell if your agreeing with me half the time, or what. You presented a hodge-podge of info that may or may not refute anything I proposed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's all handwaving.

I ask questions and state specific responses, you ignore all of these, and somehow I'm handwaving?

We get the 10^99 numbers etc., when calculating the probability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

Impossible. First, the probability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is 1, since evolutionary theory requires these. Second, to calculate the probability that we would find the specific evolutionary processes yielding the results we do is 0, as is the probability that they yield any result simply because when there are infinitely many possibilities the probability of any is always 0 (if you were to try to calculate the probability of hitting any point in the unit square with a dart, it would always be 0; better still, despite there being infinitely many rational numbers between any two rational numbers, the probability that picking an irrational number from the interval [0,1] is 1, while the probability of picking a rational number from this interval is 0). Third, to employ your flaws logic you still have to calculate the probability of an event, not "evolution". For example, to meet the basic substandard mathematical reasoning and pseudoscience that typifies such arguments, you'd have to say something about the probability of "random mutation and natural selection" yielding a particular result. You don't. Fourth, the probabilities of any event given random mutation and natural selection are not independent, which means that even were your result sensical and even were it based on solid reasoning, you wouldn't be giving the probability of both random mutation and natural selection. Fifth...ok, again I'm bored. So for number 5 we'll just go with the fact that if you didn't make this number up you stole it from some source you're not citing.

Anybody who doesn't see that doesn't even understand about the number of possible combinations you can make with 4 bases, and about a million slots or whatever.

Anybody who thinks that this is a reasonable approach to probability should look up terms like "conditional probability", "Bayes' Theorem", continuous random variables/distributions (unfortunately, as really measure theory renders such distinctions largely irrelevant, but I've yet to meet someone who mastered rigorous (i.e., measure-theoretic) probability theory without learning undergraduate level probability first), etc. There are uncountably infinitely many probability distributions for which the entire set of possible outcomes is uncountably infinite and the probability of any single one of them is always 0.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's why I wrote 'unknown'.

Which is wrong. It isn't unknown. It's undefined. This distinction is fundamentally essential. It's the difference between e.g., calculating the always inexact probabilities in statistical mechanics and calculating the probability that all blorgs are lkuriqs. One involves uncertainty, the other nonsense (because it deals with the undefined).

Where did I say that it was

1//0/ unknown, possibly no chance to determine a probability

ie what is commonly considered ''impossible'', or improbable to the highest degree, for randomness)

I tried to make sense of these, despite the fact that they don't make any sense. If I misinterpreted, my apologies. Please explain what "no chance to determine a probability" is and how it relates to an undefined notion rather than uncertainty, what on earth "improbable to the highest degree" means/is, and what it means/is "for randomness" as well as which form of "randomness" you are using.

doesn't matter, we have the ''sequence'', /coin flips/, to compare, your statement doesn't discredit my argument, if anything it bolsters it.

So we know what the possible sequences are, which allows us to determine exactly the probability. In your case, we don't, which means we can't determine the probability exactly, and renders your argument the claim that a probability we can't calculate is improbable because...?

/0/ isn't quantifying randomness, that's why you end up with most improbable in the real world model.

No, we end up with trouble because of things like degrees of freedom, ensembles, the phase space (or sample space and probability space), etc. We certainly don't run into trouble by confusing "undefined" with uncertainty and mistaking the relationship between randomness and probability (or failing to specify what kind of randomness we refer to).

I can't tell if your agreeing with me half the time, or what.

Perhaps that's because you conflate terms and use mathematical arguments you don't understand in conflicting and inherently contradictory ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know, but apparently not good for randomness, which means not very good for probability theory (random variables being so important and all).

The probability of pink flamingos is 1. Why? There exist pink flamingos. Everything else reduces to the coin toss fallacy:
Creationist/ID logic: "The chances that you will flip a billion coins and get a billion heads is 1 in a billion! So if you get a billon heads, it's God"
Actual logic: "But the chances of getting any and all sequence of heads and tails given a billion coin tosses is also 1 in a billion, and the chances of getting a sequence of a billion tosses is 1"
Creationist/ID logic: "Not if the coins are pink."

One test I give to illustrate probability.....

What are the odds that I can flip a coin to get heads 10 times in a row?

Many can do math. They'll quickly & confidently say "One in 1024".
The perspicacious ones will ask how many trials there are.
Without knowing this, the answer would range between 0 & 1.....a several orders of magnitude difference.

Premises are so crucial, & yet so often overlooked....as though the mere application of math confers inerrancy

 

[Revoltingest]

It's all handwaving. We get the 10^99 numbers etc., when calculating the probability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Anybody who doesn't see that doesn't even understand about the number of possible combinations you can make with 4 bases, and about a million slots or whatever.

You've given your answer, ie, "10^99 numbers", but you haven't shown your work.
That number is simply plucked out of thin air.
It is no more convincing to the other side than it would be if I told you the probability of non-god-directed evolution is 1.000.
You'd want to see why, wouldn't you?

Let's say one wants to calculate the probability that a particular feature would evolve.
I don't know enuf to actually do this.
But I can see some of the premises which we'd need.....
- What is the time frame? 10 million years? 100 million years?
- How many organisms are there?
- How many biological pathways are there from non-existence to existence of the feature?
- How long is the reproductive life cycle of the organism?
This is just off the top'o me head.
I'll wager that there are many more such premises needed.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Why is it that people don't understand that the theory of evolution as one unit evolving to the best of its ability for the sake of its existence within its environment goes hand in and with some creative force starting everything kind of like something starting the Big Bang?

 

[Desert Snake]

One test I give to illustrate probability.....

What are the odds that I can flip a coin to get heads 10 times in a row?

Many can do math. They'll quickly & confidently say "One in 1024".
The perspicacious ones will ask how many trials there are.
Without knowing this, the answer would range between 0 & 1.....a several orders of magnitude difference.

Premises are so crucial, & yet so often overlooked....as though the mere application of math confers inerrancy

It's different concepts, however. *Translating something like the OP premise into coin flips will yield increased improbability, whereas in your illustration, it has the opposite effect. The only way we could quantify an exact number of representational coin flips regarding the OP is to have a repetition statistic between two OP units. (pink flamingos); the coin flip in translation to the op premise or similar, changes from one sequence, /10 same side in a row/,, (your illustration), to two sequences, ie one sequence of /same side in a row/, then another sequence of /same side in a row./ Then the amount of coin flips between these two sequences, could be used as the probable figure for random occurrence.


*theoretical as we only have one unit in the OP premise. of course.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's worse than that.
The pot makes the claim, but won't support it.
The kettle made no claim....he just wanted the pot to support his own.

You are making the claim that evolution is true, and then you say that the dog ate your homework, you cannot do the probability calculations on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's different concepts, however. Translating something like the OP premise into coin flips will yield increased improbability, whereas in your illustration, it has the opposite effect. The only way we could quantify an exact number of representational coin flips regarding the OP is to have a repetition statistic between two op units. the coin flip in translation to the op premise or similar, changes from one sequence, /10 same side in a row/,, (your illustration), to two sequences, ie one sequence of /same side in a row/, then another sequence of /same side in a row./ Then the amount of coin flips between these two repetitions could be used as the probable figure for random occurrence.

We can't have exactness when so much is unknown.
Even order of magnitude numbers will be very rough guesses.
So it isn't so much about getting a correct answer, as it is improving our understanding of what's happening.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are making the claim that evolution is true, and then you say that the dog ate your homework, you cannot do the probability calculations on it.

I've said that I can't do any fancy probability calculations, & I've given some detailed reasons why I can't.
These are same reasons why no one here can.
But remember that I'm not the one claiming to have the probabilities all worked out.
So my lack of shown work is consistent with my claim of ignorance.
But those who make claims ought to justify them when asked to.

I wonder.....how many here have studied probability, statistics, & stochastic systems?
Legion & I have. (I'm less studied than he, but I've enuf background to have a BS alarm.)
I'm not claiming great authority or any such foolishness, but I'm curious wherefrom we all speak.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I ask questions and state specific responses, you ignore all of these, and somehow I'm handwaving?


Impossible. First, the probability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is 1, since evolutionary theory requires these. Second, to calculate the probability that we would find the specific evolutionary processes yielding the results we do is 0, as is the probability that they yield any result simply because when there are infinitely many possibilities the probability of any is always 0 (if you were to try to calculate the probability of hitting any point in the unit square with a dart, it would always be 0; better still, despite there being infinitely many rational numbers between any two rational numbers, the probability that picking an irrational number from the interval [0,1] is 1, while the probability of picking a rational number from this interval is 0). Third, to employ your flaws logic you still have to calculate the probability of an event, not "evolution". For example, to meet the basic substandard mathematical reasoning and pseudoscience that typifies such arguments, you'd have to say something about the probability of "random mutation and natural selection" yielding a particular result. You don't. Fourth, the probabilities of any event given random mutation and natural selection are not independent, which means that even were your result sensical and even were it based on solid reasoning, you wouldn't be giving the probability of both random mutation and natural selection. Fifth...ok, again I'm bored. So for number 5 we'll just go with the fact that if you didn't make this number up you stole it from some source you're not citing.


Anybody who thinks that this is a reasonable approach to probability should look up terms like "conditional probability", "Bayes' Theorem", continuous random variables/distributions (unfortunately, as really measure theory renders such distinctions largely irrelevant, but I've yet to meet someone who mastered rigorous (i.e., measure-theoretic) probability theory without learning undergraduate level probability first), etc. There are uncountably infinitely many probability distributions for which the entire set of possible outcomes is uncountably infinite and the probability of any single one of them is always 0.

I already mentioned the particular result of an advantageous gene, and the obvious particular result is whole organisms like pink flamingo's. Your style of writing authoritarian garbage, it's undermining your capability to reason things through. We would certainly not want people to think evolution is probable on the same terms that they regard any other probability.

Note that with epigenitics, as it was explained, the impossibility of evolution is multiplied. Because then there are not only random mutations, then there is also randomness in the environment to turn genes off and on. I don't see how if we cannot have intelligent choosing of how DNA comes to be, that we can have intelligent choosing of any kind of how genes are turned off and on. So we have the chaos of mutation, mulitiplied by the chaos of the environment turning genes off and on, providing complete impossibility to the evolution idea.

It is much more sensible to regard DNA as like a harddisk, and RNA as like RAM memory, and that it is perfectly possible to write to DNA, not only read from it. And same with a computer, the DNA system will be flexible, and depend on "user" input, which means it is chosen. Choosing provides for the flexibility that is required of such systems.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I've said that I can't do any fancy probability calculations, & I've given some detailed reasons why I can't.
These are same reasons why no one here can.
But remember that I'm not the one claiming to have the probabilities all worked out.
So my lack of shown work is consistent with my claim of ignorance.

Not really, you are saying evolution is true to fact, and then you have no numbers.

The claims were reasonably justified. We can randomly put pits in a DVD, and try to find the Godfather part V. We only have to do broad scopes calculation to see this cannot happen.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Let's say one wants to calculate the probability that a particular feature would evolve..

Yes let's say evolutionists are scientists and they actually want to do science and calculate the numbers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really, you are saying evolution is true to fact, and then you have no numbers.

Where have I said evolution is "true"?

The claims were reasonably justified. We can randomly put pits in a DVD, and try to find the Godfather part V. We only have to do broad scopes calculation to see this cannot happen.

Evolution is observable in the fossil record, in computer simulations & in real time biology.
We only differ on the cause.
You say natural causes are impossible, & claim evidence, but you don't present it.
I only claim that there is a mechanism for natural mechanism for evolution, which I've given on many other threads here before.
You claim alternately mathematical justification & the argument of obviousness.
The former is lacking, & the latter is unconvincing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes let's say evolutionists are scientists and they actually want to do science and calculate the numbers.

Your point here is unclear.
The text you quoted is incomplete, & ignores the point I made about what is necessary in order to calculate probability.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your point here is unclear.
The text you quoted is incomplete, & ignores the point I made about what is necessary in order to calculate probability.

Does this mean you likewise have to throw your hands up in the air, and cannot say if you can arrive at the Godfather part V by a way of randomly putting pits in a DVD? Do you also proudly proclaim ignorance about that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Does this mean you likewise have to throw your hands up in the air, and cannot say if you can arrive at the Godfather part V by a way of randomly putting pits in a DVD? Do you also proudly proclaim ignorance about that?

I don't understand the analogy you make.
It's difficult to address imprecise allusions to things technical.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't understand the analogy you make.
It's difficult to address imprecise allusions to things technical.

It is more failure of your subjectivity, that you don't muster up the motivation to understand things which prove your argumentation is nonsense.