Thanks for making my case. I doubt the stats you've provided above concerning the random generation of 31 characters creating a five word sentance, but its not worth the math because it doesn't really matter. If I divide "1" by a denominator backed by #10 font zeros long enough to stretch from one end of the known universe to the other, that is still a fraction and thus a probability.
I've already stated that certain levels of improbability are unbelievable to me even if they aren't technically impossible. You wish to redifine "impossible" to meet a certain level of improbability. That's fine for you, but math is still math.
[[Thanks for making my case. I doubt the stats you’ve provided above concerning the random generation of 31 characters creating a five word sentance, but its not worth the math because it doesn’t really matter. If I divide “1” by a denominator backed by #10 font zeros long enough to stretch from one end of the known universe to the other, that is still a fraction and thus a probability.]]
Good golly- I guess you missed the part that specifically stated that beyond a certain upper limitation- it’s IMPOSSIBLE- The ‘probability becomes an impossibility
[[I’ve already stated that certain levels of improbability are unbelievable to me even if they aren’t technically impossible.]]
they are both technically, and practically impossible- they are not probabilities- not even remote probabilities- they are impossibilities- the article spells that out clearly
[[You wish to redifine “impossible” to meet a certain level of improbability.]]
Psssst- it’s not me defining the term ‘impossibility’- it’s mathematicians and scientists- you are the one trying to stretch out hte definition of probable to mean ‘even if impossible, it’s still a probability, regardless of how small the probability’- impossible means just that- impossible- not goign to happen- ever-
Impossible:
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment.
3. incapable of being true, as a rumor.
4. not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety: an impossible situation.
5. utterly impracticable: an impossible plan.
Improbable:
1. likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3. affording ground for belief.
Note VERY carefully- there is NO grounds for statign that Macroevlution affords ANYONE ANY grounds for belief when discussing just these statistics
You are claiming that Evolution, statistically, ‘isn’t likely to happen’ (but trying to infer that it ‘could happen, even if a very small chance’) It can not happen- period- Statistically, it is impossible, biologically it is impossible- mutaitons do NOT produce new non species specific informaiton- they can not- it’s not possible (despite many people’s hope that they could)
your ball had a chance of landing upright on the post simpyl because all the elements necessary for htis happening were already inplace and functioning as they were designed to do- there was a probability of it happening, even if small- Macroevolution is a scientific impossibility- a law violating impossibility- Your ball was a law observing act which simply accomplished somethign that was possible- macroevolution is a law violating act that can not occure- ever
I’ve never been comfortable with htese ‘probability’ arguments on statistics because the fact is overlooked that mutaitons CAN NOT produce new non species specific ifnromation- these probability arguments on statistics simply assume mutaitons could produce hte necessary new non species specific information, but it’s biologically impossible- it’s not even an improbable event made impossible by breaching hte upper limits of probability which turn it into an impossible act- mutaitons are not capable of producing new non species specific informaiton- it’s simpyl an impossibility, and nature can not provide hte necessary informaiton and metainformaiton that absolutely MUSt be present FIRST- it’s an impossibility for nature to provide this
While I don’t particularly like the statistic arguments because they ASSUME mutaitons ‘couyld have’ provided the necessary non species specific informaiton depsite much evidence to the contrary, these statistical arguments do however show just how impossible it woudl be EVEN IF mutaitons could provide the absolutely essential non species specific info needed to move a species beyond it’s own kind- and it shows that even if mutaitons could do this, even one ‘chance’ of it happenign just once, is beyond the probability upper limitations, it’s straight into the realm of impossible