It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm proposing that the mathematical probability of evolution is astoundingly ridiculous.
Mathematically the chances of this cell forming is 1 in 10 119,879
Enter mathematical probabilities and you have a very solid case for a B.S. flag to waived high.
it doesn't change the fact that not a single one of you has addressed the issue of mathematical improbability (impossibility?) of the evolutionary theory.
The simplest reproducing cell known to man is the H39 strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) which contains 625 proteins, with an average of 400 amino acids in each protein.
...
So unless we're going to say that there is a better than 1 in 1050 chance that a single celled organism popped out of the goo, the entire argument is moot.
...
wait a second... "It's not very clear, but most likely..." What the hell is that?
...
The "first membranes" forming is a complete guess at how the protein structures were able to jump into a cellular formation. There is NOTHING out there to back this up.
I didn't say Tiki fish was irrelevant, I said that rnna whined that a fish with legs would disprove the MES theory, yet Tiki exists and is a major part of evolutionary theory.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by gncnew
The Saints was not a 50-50 chance win. Just because 2 outcomes are possible does not mean that the chances are the same for each outcome. That is one of the problems with the idiotic odds calculation in the reference you used. I've already posted that issue.
There are other issues on top of that. I listed those as well.
Thus the odds become exponentially impossible.
first cell short
a group of organic molecules including proteins, and primitive fatty acids formed into a droplet, or bubble-like structure, which had the ability to combine with external elements, such as proteins not a part of it. Eventually, these droplets would grow, and divide. These droplets would eventually evolve into the first true cell. These early cells would have been autotrophs, which are organism which produce their own energy, usually from sunlight. Some of these cells would then evolve into heterotrophs (organisms which ingest organic material as a nutrient source)
Event theory
Attempts to define probabilities for all subsets of the real numbers run into difficulties when one considers 'badly-behaved' sets, such as those which are nonmeasurable.
Let's say I've got a 1:6 chance of rolling a four on a six-sided die. If I am going to see the probability of rolling a four two times in a row I need to multiply 1:6 * 1:6. this gives me a 1:36 chance of rolling the four twice in a row.
I think you've gotten the idea that "creationists perpetuate math lies" because they don't bother even let the picture look this possible. They usually go right out there and give you the unreal level of probability of the whole thing. And when you look into the freaky world of probability theory things get pretty crazy.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by gncnew
I think you've gotten the idea that "creationists perpetuate math lies" because they don't bother even let the picture look this possible. They usually go right out there and give you the unreal level of probability of the whole thing. And when you look into the freaky world of probability theory things get pretty crazy.
1. You claim that the events are independent
2. You claim that the probabilities are uniform
3. You imply that only one instance is being considered
I suggest that you have no evidence that any of these are true. In fact, I have shown number 1 and 2 to be false.
Are you proposing that the events that created the first cell were NOT independent? If they were related, under what pretense is it exactly that they're related?
I only claimed the probabilities were uniform to show the simplicity of the concept of the math. In fact I showed you at the end how my artificial spaces set a finite amount of events that actually limited the probabilities to a much smaller level.
By the way - you multiply them because while a probability is less than one, since it's a positive number, adding them actually increases your probability of it happening.
This is a case where the events happening actually ARE happening independently of each other instead of something like say rolling a six and a four in your first three rolls.
Why are you seriously arguing about this. I honestly put this as strait forward as it can be.
Originally posted by Truent2
reply to post by MrXYZ
O.K. you are using the word of a British actor/comedian as the truth?!?! WAKE UP XYZ!!!! THIS GUY IS NO SCIENTIST! DON'T TAKE HIS WORD FOR GOSPEL!
P.S. Gospel means truth in Greek so it's not a purely religious term I've had that problem with several Atheists.
Are you proposing that the events that created the first cell were NOT independent? If they were related, under what pretense is it exactly that they're related?