There is no such thing as ‘the chance hypothesis’. Presumably you mean by the phrase, ‘the not-designed hypothesis’. But ‘not-designed’ isn’t a process – it’s all possible processes that don’t include design. So how do you calculate the probability?
ETA: Also, you defined ‘complex’ as ‘improbable’. Did you actually mean ‘improbable apart from design’?
A valid point. I am one who likes to keep threads “on topic”.
Well if anything, I posted my (seemingly odd) answer to Faizel’s question partially because I thought this was a good discussion to have. His question went unasked for over a week. I had a feeling a response like mine might get the dialog going some more. Which it seemed to do.
At the same time, if you noiticed, there was a subtle commentary on the topic in broad. I actually recall once hearing an evolution respond to the ‘increased complexity’ topic by responding with “well corn is more complex than humans”.
Without knowing how that person was defining complexity, I can’t speak to the validity of it. I am sure that I could, if I wanted to, come up with a definition of ‘complexity’ such that corn was more ‘complex’, but I could come up with another that put humans on top. This is why clear definitions are important.
Did you generate that sentence by typing random characters?
Is the probability of generating that sentence by random characters exactly the same as the probability of it being written as a response in this thread?
Or does what you call something matter even when you’re completely wrong?
Either one of these is correct, or I’m not wrong at all.
The probability of getting that particular sentence (a string of words) by chance alone is certainly possible but highly improbable, but the chance of getting any sentence doesn’t suffer the same degree of improbability.
More importantly, you generated that sentence not by chance, but conscious effort, so computing the probability of forming that sentence by chance seems irrelevant.