Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:36 am So using simple math
number of steps X average population required to bridge each step = total population required to bridge all the steps
or
10^7 X 10^10 = 10^17

From where did you get this formula?
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:11 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:36 am So using simple math
number of steps X average population required to bridge each step = total population required to bridge all the steps
or
10^7 X 10^10 = 10^17

From where did you get this formula?
Nils

I didn't need to get it from anywhere... it is straightforward multiplication.

I was curious about what would happen if I took your assumptions as I understood them, and then incorporated the observed frequency of specific single random mutations.

I even used your "what happened happened" assumption and just ignored the likelihood a specific path occurring.
And straightforward multiplication (which is a function of ignoring the likelihood of a specific path occurring) is much more friendly to your position than either the logarithmic or exponential calculations that are usually used for this kind of analysis.
Like you noted, that's not really how statistics works... but I was curious.

Like I said earlier... feel free to share your assumptions (in case I didn't get them right) and your math.
I would just ask that you use an empirically observed frequency for random mutations. That way you are using an empirically observed value to represent the capability of "random" mutation instead of just making assumptions about what "random" mutation can do.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:09 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:11 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:36 am So using simple math
number of steps X average population required to bridge each step = total population required to bridge all the steps
or
10^7 X 10^10 = 10^17

From where did you get this formula?
Nils

I didn't need to get it from anywhere... it is straightforward multiplication.

I was curious about what would happen if I took your assumptions as I understood them, and then incorporated the observed frequency of specific single random mutations.

This is just stupidity. I doubt that there is enough knowledge to do a statistical analysis of the probability that we would get humans if we restarted the world five million years ago several times. Perhaps in the future and then using computer simulations. There are so many assumptions that have to be made, I gave you some hints earlier. But anyhow, it is an extremely complex issue. (There are other strong arguments for the case that humans developed from a common ancestor but that's another story).

You take the probability of one mutation changing one specific gene (a well known fact) and an out of the blue formula whose only merit is that it is simple. And then you have an answer. Fantastic! Why not apply your reasoning to you and your father. In #237 I calculated the number of mutations to approximately 70 per generation. Doing your math gives the probability that you are your father's son to 1 in 70 x 10^10. Hope this will not upset you.

The whole idea is absurd that without any deep knowledge of the evolution theory and no knowledge of statistics you claim that "even if we assume small single mutation steps I think we can still use some rough math to demonstrate that random mutation is incapable of producing the changes that we see in the fossil record and the DNA of life today. " #231. You think that by doing just a back-of-an-envelope-calculation you can demonstrate that the theory of evolution is debunked. This is startlingly ridiculous.

I'm sorry but I can't continue to discuss this kind of nonsense.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:42 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:09 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:11 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:36 am So using simple math
number of steps X average population required to bridge each step = total population required to bridge all the steps
or
10^7 X 10^10 = 10^17

From where did you get this formula?
Nils

I didn't need to get it from anywhere... it is straightforward multiplication.

I was curious about what would happen if I took your assumptions as I understood them, and then incorporated the observed frequency of specific single random mutations.

This is just stupidity.

Well... it is based on your assumptions...
If that is how you wish to characterize the results of your assumptions... so be it...

I personally wouldn't use the word 'stupidity' to describe your assumptions.
I would say that they have no basis in reality.
And I would say that your data free assumptions about the capability of random mutation are far far far removed by astronomical orders of magnitude from the empirically observed capability of random mutation.

Your data free assumptions and argumentation about the capability of random mutations are meaningless unless you can present a cogent argument that is consistent with the empirically observed capability of random mutations.

And you have yet to present an argument that is consistent with the empirically observed capability of random mutation.

Or Nils can just believe whatever he wants on faith alone, because statistically, he's nowhere near the numbers he needs to believe based upon data alone! But his evolution argument is still a secondary sideshow to what he really needs to first explain. But just like Audi, he'll eventually (be forced to) wind his argument down to speculation of what is possible by blind things without any intelligence, not to mention how ANYTHING, much less precisely the extraordinary and necessary building blocks needed to create a universe that all life depends upon, came into existence to begin with - and immediately began adhering to complex laws and "self" organizing - not after billions of years - or even millions - but immediately upon the Big Bang's beginning.