wouldn't you agree that evolution (from a cell to a human without guidance) equivalent to winning the megaball lottery's jackpot many many times conssecutively -- and therefore highly unlikely
@steflova2 Not really, the chance of winning the lotto once is independent of the chance of winning it again. That I won the lotto once does not change the chance that I will win the lotto again (though the chance of winning the lotto more then once is less likely then winning it once). Evolution isn't like that... the chance of a single self replicating molecule emerging may be low, but once that self replicator emerges it can reproduce.
No, it is not. You are making the same mistake that Craig made by assuming that these events are statistically independent, which they are not. The probability of humans evolving from Australopithecus is much higher once the Australopithecus exists. The same can't be said of (not loaded) dice. The probability of rolling a three and then a six is the same as for rolling a six then a three.
@ManicEightBall "The same can't be said of (not loaded) dice."
I agree - you answered the classical fallacy of thinking dicerolls depend on previous rolls... I think most people can understand Bayes' theorem if explained just a little bit more in common language. Albeit I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe I have to correct this comment! :D
@steflova2 That is what this video is about... it isn't "Astronomically improbable" that we evolved from a single cell because the probabilities are not independent. Once a single cell emerged it became much more probable that multi-cellular life would evolve.
Further just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible.
I'm watching the Discover Science Channel the program is called Atlas 40, it discusses evolution, but it starts out by saying the probabilities of life evolving is somewhere around 0. I think that all the scientists like Hawkins acknowledge that the probability of "life" evolving is extremely close to 1 to infinity. -- just about zilch. Isn't it reasonable to say the the probabilities for evolution (a cell to a human without guidance ) extremely unlikely.
@steflova2 From what we can tell the probability is extremely unlikely that life will form (it may be more likely then we think). However once life emerges the probabilities change quite a bit. A self replicator in a pool of raw materials is almost certain to produce more self replicators as it were. The larger the number of self replicators the greater the chance that a beneficial mutation will occur, even if the chance of that mutation happening to one remains very small.
i saw an angel, a white light experience, so i'm sure there's some kind of god, and various prophets have probably manifested throughout time, sort of progressive revelation, but does m theory support that?
wouldn't you agree that evolution (from a cell to a human without guidance) equivalent to winning the megaball lottery's jackpot many many times conssecutively -- and therefore highly unlikely
steflova2 1 year ago
@steflova2 Not really, the chance of winning the lotto once is independent of the chance of winning it again. That I won the lotto once does not change the chance that I will win the lotto again (though the chance of winning the lotto more then once is less likely then winning it once). Evolution isn't like that... the chance of a single self replicating molecule emerging may be low, but once that self replicator emerges it can reproduce.
stonetop 1 year ago
@stonetop is it possible for you to admit that the chances for evolution (from a single cell to a human being ) is astronomically improbable?
steflova2 1 year ago
@steflova2 "is it possible for you to admit..."
No, it is not. You are making the same mistake that Craig made by assuming that these events are statistically independent, which they are not. The probability of humans evolving from Australopithecus is much higher once the Australopithecus exists. The same can't be said of (not loaded) dice. The probability of rolling a three and then a six is the same as for rolling a six then a three.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago 3
@ManicEightBall "The same can't be said of (not loaded) dice."
I agree - you answered the classical fallacy of thinking dicerolls depend on previous rolls... I think most people can understand Bayes' theorem if explained just a little bit more in common language. Albeit I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe I have to correct this comment! :D
pellevinken 4 months ago
@pellevinken
Thank you for your comment.
ManicEightBall 4 months ago
@steflova2 That is what this video is about... it isn't "Astronomically improbable" that we evolved from a single cell because the probabilities are not independent. Once a single cell emerged it became much more probable that multi-cellular life would evolve.
Further just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible.
stonetop 1 year ago 2
I'm watching the Discover Science Channel the program is called Atlas 40, it discusses evolution, but it starts out by saying the probabilities of life evolving is somewhere around 0. I think that all the scientists like Hawkins acknowledge that the probability of "life" evolving is extremely close to 1 to infinity. -- just about zilch. Isn't it reasonable to say the the probabilities for evolution (a cell to a human without guidance ) extremely unlikely.
steflova2 1 year ago
@steflova2 From what we can tell the probability is extremely unlikely that life will form (it may be more likely then we think). However once life emerges the probabilities change quite a bit. A self replicator in a pool of raw materials is almost certain to produce more self replicators as it were. The larger the number of self replicators the greater the chance that a beneficial mutation will occur, even if the chance of that mutation happening to one remains very small.
stonetop 1 year ago
i saw an angel, a white light experience, so i'm sure there's some kind of god, and various prophets have probably manifested throughout time, sort of progressive revelation, but does m theory support that?
justanothersheeple 2 years ago
I'm not a physicist.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago