Originally posted by PsychoPawnThere is nothing particularly flawed about that. It is the conclusion you draw from the probability that matters.
Either that or they calculate the cumulative probability.
I once pointed out to a theist in the spirituality forum that all events are by their very nature highly improbable and he basically said "well that proves it, God did it." Sometimes, theists can be so blind that they cant see how silly their arguments look.
I am fairly sure that Kelly does not really have any argument whatsoever but merely thinks that by saying something is improbable will shed doubt on it then leave it at that. He does not really want to discuss what the implications of his statement really are, nor try to understand it himself. He is going to ignore our posts and drop the subject for now, then repeat the statement in some other thread.
Originally posted by FabianFnashmm i don't get it. what is the point of asking the probability of an event occurring after that event occurred? shouldn't it always be 1?
I go to a beach of pebbles. I take up one pebble and ask the question: "What is the probability that there exist a pebble exactly like this?" (It's a classical question.)
The answer is: =1 because I hold the one in the hand.
(You use the term odds, I use the term probability. If E(p) = 1 then odds = 1/probablity. Normally in gambling E(p) is not =1, ...[text shortened]... I am willing to change my view, of course. (I have a scientific mind, you know.)
what kelly is trying to say(i think) is what was the probability of DNA turning out like it did, 4 billion years ago?
and i don't agree that the probability of another planet evolving exactly the same DNA is exactly 0. maybe the limit is close to 0. which granted, means the same in a practical situation.
Originally posted by ZahlanziTake the last 100 winners of EuroMillions. What is the ex-ante probability that those were the winners in that exact order?
what kelly is trying to say(i think) is what was the probability of DNA turning out like it did, 4 billion years ago?
The odds for a single win is 1 in 76,275,360, so the ex-ante probability of that sequence of 100 winners is (1/76275360)^100.
Is this proof of cheating by the organizers (i.e. design)? Of course not. It's the same principle.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaAgreed. -but for those who don’t understand this concept:
Take the last 100 winners of EuroMillions. What is the ex-ante probability that those were the winners in that exact order?
The odds for a single win is 1 in 76,275,360, so the ex-ante probability of that sequence of 100 winners is (1/76275360)^100.
Is this proof of cheating by the organizers (i.e. design)? Of course not. It's the same principle.
Hypothetically, suppose DNA didn’t form the way it did but formed with two of the DNA bases having a slightly different chemical formula (presumably if that happened it would then not really be called “DNA” but have a different name), then you could calculate the odds of it forming that way and find it mathematically very small -the same goes if, hypothetically, DNA formed with six different kinds of base pairs instead of four and.. so on and so on -with each and every possible outcome (and there are many of them) having a small probability of occurring that precise way.
And yet it still must have formed the way it did no matter how improbable that way was! -thus although each precise way it could have formed must have a small probability of happening that way, if it forms at all then the probability of it forming in ANY particular way must be 100% Therefore, the mere fact that there is a very small probability of it forming the way it did has no relevance to the probability that it could have formed in ANY way and it doesn’t in any way show the probability of it forming in ANY particular way to be a small one.
A similar argument can be given to the probability of evolution making every living thing evolve the exact way it did and also the probability of the solar system and the Earth forming in the exact way it did -these probabilities are small but the probability of it happening in ANY particular way is still 100% because it must have formed whichever way it did.
Originally posted by PalynkaBut Kelly has not made any such claim. He has merely stated that the probability can be calculated and that nobody wants to do so. He has avoided explaining why anyone would want to do such a ridiculous and meaningless calculation. He merely wants to shed doubt on evolution without actually proposing an argument as he knows that he has no such argument.
Take the last 100 winners of EuroMillions. What is the ex-ante probability that those were the winners in that exact order?
The odds for a single win is 1 in 76,275,360, so the ex-ante probability of that sequence of 100 winners is (1/76275360)^100.
Is this proof of cheating by the organizers (i.e. design)? Of course not. It's the same principle.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHis argument is clearly implicit. I don't think KJ would deny that he is presenting the odds argument to defend his ID vs Evolution position.
But Kelly has not made any such claim. He has merely stated that the probability can be calculated and that nobody wants to do so. He has avoided explaining why anyone would want to do such a ridiculous and meaningless calculation. He merely wants to shed doubt on evolution without actually proposing an argument as he knows that he has no such argument.
To be honest the probability of the universe turning out just right and DNA forming just as it did to arrive at our species must be =1 because otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure probabilities or eat a cheese sandwich or anything. well... the universe could have formed many times withour us here to observe it but then obviously we wouldn't know would we.
Besides Kelly jay has Hi-jacked the argument again...
The original post was about R Dawkins....
personally i prefer his books to his appearances on T.V although he is one of the few speakers on t.v who doesn't mince his words in order to please people who might not agree with him. I think it's a shame his clarity of vision in thinking about evolution has got caught up in 'hype' (for want of a better word) of his 'crusade' against religion.
This is a video clip from youtube there is a single f word if you are sensitive to this sort of thing but i strongly recommend you look up the rest of the videos of this convention... They used to be on 'google videos' if you can find them.
Originally posted by Palynkaso what you are saying is that kelly thinking that the odds being so slim, he assumes that the events must have had a helping hand from god?
Take the last 100 winners of EuroMillions. What is the ex-ante probability that those were the winners in that exact order?
The odds for a single win is 1 in 76,275,360, so the ex-ante probability of that sequence of 100 winners is (1/76275360)^100.
Is this proof of cheating by the organizers (i.e. design)? Of course not. It's the same principle.
if so, i agree we have incorrect thinking on the kelly end of the argument
1 edit
Originally posted by Feastboyi don't agree. you cannot measure the probability of an event if you know the outcome. because it will always be 1. you cannot measure the probability of a number between 1 and 6 appear on a dice throw because of course it will always be 1. so the probability of the universe turning just like this is not 1.
To be honest the probability of the universe turning out just right and DNA forming just as it did to arrive at our species must be =1 because otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure probabilities or eat a cheese sandwich or anything. well... the universe could have formed many times withour us here to observe it but then obviously we wouldn't know would videos of this convention... They used to be on 'google videos' if you can find them.
edit: and you are right, we did diverged from the subject. i personally find dawkins a pompous ass whenever he comes on tv and says all religious people are idiots and god doesn't exist just because we can do without him and blames atrocities on religion rather than humanity being a sadistic child.
his books are better written though
I think the reason why he's become more active is because at a time when science and medicine are advancing rapidly, the Christian church in the US seems to have gained in power substantially. Maybe it's always been that bad or maybe I've just noticed it recently but science has really come 'under attack' with the whole resurgence of creationism and intelligent design.
Not only that but in the UK and i imagine in the US also science and modern medicine is 'under attack' from pseudo-science health cures like homeopathy and crystal healing.
Scientists generally used to let that sort of thing slide but It's getting to the point where no-bodys saying "this is wrong" and he's stepped up. Although he does come across as pompous I agree...
Originally posted by PalynkaI think he prefers to remain silent on whether or not he has an actual argument. That way he thinks he has avoided the embarrassment of being shown up, as he knows perfectly well that it is a flawed argument.
His argument is clearly implicit. I don't think KJ would deny that he is presenting the odds argument to defend his ID vs Evolution position.
If he is making an "odds" argument then he is doing extremely poorly considering that he fully admits that no-one has actually calculated the odds. You cannot base an argument on the results of a calculation that has no been done.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot under attack... 'under attack'....
Science is under attack from homeopathy ... ?
Not a concious attack, but a twisting of science to try to explain alternative therapies. It usually involves the word 'Energy', which in physics has quite a specific meaning but in the hands of an alternative therapist becomes things like 'positive energy', 'vibrational energy', 'chi/ki' and the like. They see the word 'energy' and try to shoehorn some real science in to back up false claims.
Vibrational energy I find particularly (no pun intended) annoying, as it is used in reiki an alternative therapy which has the laying on of hands to try to release blockages in the chi/ki. One way of explaining how this process allegedly works is by using vibrational energy which is to do with increasing the vibrational energy of atoms so that energy can flow freely once more. When I pointed out to one group that they'd actually be cooking people by doing this they were still fairly non-plussed.