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.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There are three doors. Behind one of these doors is a brand new car and behind the other two are goats. You are told to choose a door, let's say you choose door number 1. The host of the show, knowing what lies behind each door, then decides to open a door with a goat behind it, door number 3. You are then asked if you would like to switch to choosing door number 2.
Would it be a reasonable choice to switch? Would it make a difference?
Well, common sense dictates that it would still be a 50/50 chance, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by Raiment
There may be proof in mathematics. Can you have 100% proof of evolution without direct retrospective observation, though? Probability weighs against chance occurrence for the origin of man (one of the logical outcomes of neo-Darwinianism).
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I hear a lot about people talking about how 'improbable' it is for evolution to be true, so let's take a look at something.
Get a standard deck of playing cards. Shuffle them.
Now deal yourself 5 cards.
The probability of the hand you just dealt yourself is 1/ (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48)%
OR
1 in 311,875,200
That's just the chance of getting a hand of any 5 cards, but it doesn't preclude it from happening.
Shuffle the cards back into the deck.
Now deal yourself another hand, it's also a 1 in 311,875,200 chance.
But now that you've dealt yourself TWO hands the chances that you would get them both in that sequence is 1 in 97,266,140,375,040,000
And so on for each and every other hand you're playing.
It gets exponentially worse when you're playing with multiple people.
So the chances of that happening are so exponentially small, so why does it happen? Well, all the other possible options have an equal chance of happening, do they not? And are people not playing with cards all over the world? Eventually someone is going to get ten hands in a row in the exact same way you were dealt ten cards.
And hence there's really no logic in saying that probability is the reason why evolution cannot be true. Something being improbable doesn't mean it is impossible, only that it is very unlikely that it will happen.
It is not 100% proof, but demonstrated to the extent that the likelihood of chance is highly improbable. That leaves us with the theory of directed evolution.
Originally posted by Raiment
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Thank you for your answer. As I understand it, the probability of the origins of man by chance is quite improbable, not equivalent at all to the old bridge hand argument. It is more like something so close to zero that many scientists call it zero.
I am not sure why guided evolution has to be proven, as non-directed evolution has not been proven either.
Evolutionsts seem to always be asking for proof when they do not have it themselves, although they do have evidence to a certain extent.
There are many gaps in neo-Darwinian theory; I'm sure you are familiar with them.
Directed evolution could possibly be developed to the point of holding equal weight to non-directed evolution, as I see it.
And where is the logical fallacy, I've yet to see one.
Originally posted by rnaa
The actual consequent of being asked if you want to change your selection is to throw the entire situation into a choice between two doors. Period. You have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
Just getting one functional protein is 10 to the 164th power.
OK, not 'logical' fallacy maybe. Reasoning fallacy. The conclusion is ignoring the facts of the situation.
The actual consequent of being asked if you want to change your selection is to throw the entire situation into a choice between two doors. Period. You have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
If q is unknown then the conditional probability is unknown too, but still it is always at least 1/2 and on average, over the possible conditions, equal to the unconditional probability 2/3.
Science has nothing to do with wisdom.