The rest of us don’t have to pay any attention to imaginary “odds” you just made up based on your gut feel either. 
1 Like
I’m getting used to that kind of selective hearing, rather than engaging the actual questions, from some of you folks.
It’s the peculiar charm of some of you.
Reminds me of junior high!
What a coincidence. We’ve gotten used to ID-Creationists using the personal incredulity “it’s too improbable to evolve!!” argument unsupported with any calculations for years.
1 Like
Good issue avoidance, once again.
Amen. the mantra is GIVEN ENOUGH TIME. Yet if evolution is not true surely TIME is not the only problem.
Indeed darwin said small steps could do anything given time. Yet thats only if mutations can do anything. SO is the probability of mutations to do what it is said they done PROBABLE or possible??
i say no! Just looking at math. However helpful a mutation could be here and there to make a new bodyplan that is selected on with a new population STILL its impossible to have built a system, called biology, on such errors/mutations.
Probability makes it worse then impossible. it truly makes it stupid. Truly finding a watch in the forest THat was made by chance or the winf through a junkyard making a glorious plane. Time doesn’t help this impossibility.
Probability is on the side of creationism.
In fact one never finds in nature the chaos of mutations. One finds, like the the elements table, a spectrum. The complete opposition of mutationism. In biology one finds intimate spectrums like the bushes/trees they try to say help evolutionism.
Actually it should be a choas that reflects mutationism. if it was they would say AHA it proves evolution.
How do you explain my questions which you keep ignoring on the other threads (such as this post at Greg On The Odds of Macroevolution and Vegas - #24 by AllenWitmerMiller)?
2 Likes
I noticed that was but one of many strands of creationist spaghetti that you threw to mask your contempt for evidence.
If that was the only thing you wanted to discuss, perhaps you should have limited your rant and not treated a 1952 experiment as an example of “now.”
Yes, you do, just as when you claim that both sides are looking at the same evidence, you should have some familiarity with the evidence.
Before you do your calculations, you should explain why you are employing a straw man fallacy in which selection does not exist.
1 Like
Yes, there is a big puzzle about homochirality.
The puzzle is this: Why do creationists think that homochirality is an argument against evolution? What are they thinking? Are they even thinking?
2 Likes
@Guy_Coe to restate, my criticism is of alleged probability arguments that never even touch on mathematics. Using the same form of argument ANY sufficiently long series of events becomes impossible. It’s a fallacious argument from the start.
If you choose to believe that God played a role in evolution, I’m OK with that (and how could I disprove it?). BUT if you make bad mathematical arguments about evolution - or anything else - I will gleefully shoot them down. 
3 Likes
Biochemical pathways in living populations produce amino acids that all have the correct chirality, so this isn’t a problem.
1 Like
I don’t see how that relates to the question of probability and evolution.
1 Like
I can only conclude that that is because you don’t want to see it, and have no answer as to how it relates to origin of life issues. Speaking about already living processes is simply begging the question.
Demanding probability calculations as a smokescreen to reject the characterization of something so obvious is a dodge.
It amazes me that this kind of issue avoidance is so intractible in otherwise capable scientists.
Good issue avoidance by Guy_Coe, once again.
1 Like
Thanks. I have good examples to follow, here.
What question is being begged? Look at the title of the thread. It is asking if probability refutes evolution, not abiogenesis. Even if life was started by God outside of natural processes it still doesn’t address the main question of the thread.
You could start a thread on abiogenesis, if you want.
1 Like
As I read that post by @Guy_Coe there are two questions that I have?
(1) To whom is @Guy_Coe replying? I don’t see any indicators of that.
(2) What topic is he discussing? Maybe this is still about homochirality, but there aren’t even any hints of that in what he wrote.
1 Like
When you claim the probabilities make evolution impossible it’s only fair we ask to see your probability calculations. It’s clear you don’t have any are just regurgitating the standard ID-Creationist bullspit. Claims of “it’s obvious” from a scientifically illiterate ID-Creationist isn’t evidence.
2 Likes
So, you’re disputing the characterization of abiogenetic origins in a homochiral milieu as “against the odds” as nonsense, as though that were the gist of an argument I am making against evolutionary processes, when I asked entirely different questions about a “directed panspermia” scenario? That’s why, on my end, it seems to involve selective hearing.
Winning the lottery is against the odds, yet people win the lottery all of the time.
1 Like