# Boeing 747s and Other Misunderstandings about Evolution

by cofty 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• ##### Island Man

If you flip a coin 5 times and get tails each time, what is the proabability you will get heads on the 6th time? Do you think it is still 50/50? Or do you think the odds have increased?

Sam, I think this quote proves that you have misunderstood my point. Yes, the odds of getting heads on any single, specific coin toss remains 50/50. But that's the thoegenist way of looking at the odds. Look at the odds a different way: Imagine there are an unlimited number of coin tosses. What are the odds that at least one of the inumerable amount of tosses will turn out to be heads? The odds of winning for a specific player, who plays the lottery at a specific time are very low. But the odds that the lottery will be won by someone at some time are very high given that many people are playing the game and many games are being played over period of many years. The fallacy that I am pointing our here, is confusing the odds for a specific result of a specific try with the odds for a specific result given a lot of tries. In other words, the sheer number of tries is enough to overcome the odds that are very slim for a single try.

Try this thought experiment Kate: Let's play 10 coin toss games. In each game we will toss a coin 100 times. To win a 100 toss game we only need to get a single toss out of 100 to result in heads. The theogenists' way of misapplying the odds predicts that roughly 5 games will be won. How many games do you think will be won? Do you think that the odds of tossing a coin 100 times and not getting a single toss to be heads, is 50/50? What are the odds that all the games will be won? I hope you see my point.

• ##### snare&racket

Kate, I have read much of Dawkins work in the early days of my degree and for me, he was the first to HIGHLIGHT that the Christian argument was a problem of probability, He was the first for me to reduce the watchmaker argument to one of probability, what is the probability of something complex forming from something less complex. All he was saying was, if christians think that this is how the world works, then god being more complex than his creation, would himself need an even more complex designer than himself, IF CHRISTIANS are to use this argument.

After explaining this interesting reversal of the argument, he then moves on to life in the universe. The probability of it happening is low, but then with the age of the universe and the chemicsl lab that it is, it was going to happen...evident by the fact...IT DID. Humans are very bad at understanding and appreciating probability. How many people do you need in a room to likely have two people with the same birthdate?......... 21. If playing a quiz gameshow and there aee three boxes, one with the prize in, if you choose a box and then one non prize box is removed i.e. You now have two boxes one you chose and one remaining... What is the probability of owning the winning box, what should the player do when offered a swap? Well people think 'there are two boxes with one prize in one box, its 50/50' ....but it isnt, you should always ask to swap the box because of probability! The box you hold has 33.3% of bei b the prize, box two has 50% of being the prize. We have a terrible instinct for probability, so to use it to dismiss anything is unwise. Even the christisns with their silly numbers of improbability dont realise they see,saying it is still possible.

The miller experiment changed my perspective hugely. Amino acids forming from thin air in reconstructed early earth environments. Religious people dismiss the fact thst dna building blocks were formed from thin air by saying nobody knows the exact conditions of early earth, of course they are just trying to throw a blanket over the fact something formed from 'nothing' or thin air, nevermind it was the building blocks for dna! Christians and their dodgy math dont allow for the laws of physics naturally bringing atoms snd molecules together, instead they predict in ignorance that it all has to happen by accident.

I hear you kate, probability is important... But Biologists just want to know how something works, or IF something CAN work. We will never know all the factors and variables to know the probability of these events, so why spend time pretendiNg we can calculate them, besides... as we can see, it did happen.

The only other section I can think of where Dawkins discusses probability is talking about christisns and their examples of probability of life and evolution, JW's did it all the time, quoting ridiculous numbers of improbability. But they do bad math, they multiply every assumed probability of mutation over and over again to get a final number.... in reality its just the probabilty of each stage happening at each point They should be calculating for. It is very deceitful. They are also calculating the wrong element, instead of quantifying mutations, it should be on surroundings as they select the mutations, again as you can see this is incalculable due to the variables, so the math is made up bull crap. Either way... We watch evolution happening all athe time, every time it does we prove all those calculations impotent....

• ##### Comatose

Thanks Island Man and Snare and Racket. Great discussion.

• ##### KateWild

Sam, I think this quote proves that you have misunderstood my point.-Island Man

I understand, I am afraid I simply disagree.

not getting a single toss to be heads- Island Man

IMHO I don't think this is a sentence, I would rather say the question is.... What is the probability that it will land on heads zero times of 100 tosses?

Each toss is 50/50, therefore the proability remains there is a 50/50 chance it will land on heads zero times. Sam xx

• ##### KateWild

The miller experiment changed my perspective hugely.-snare

It confirms my bias that there must be an intelligent creator, there is too much order in evolution for random mutations to be truly random. That's just my view though, but Einstein agrees with me.

Love Sam xx

• ##### cofty

What is the probability that it will land on heads zero times of 100 tosses? Each toss is 50/50, therefore the proability remains there is a 50/50 chance it will land on heads zero times - Sam

Actually the chances of getting 100 heads in a row is 0.5 to the power of 100 but that is getting off topic.

The point it that evolving complexity does not happen in large, highly unlikely leaps. It is built gradually through cumulative changes.

Sam - Einstein's opinions on god are no more interesting than my postmans opinions on football.

• ##### Comatose

Kate that doesn't sound right. I don't believe that's a very accurate statement that flipping a coin 100 times is the same as flipping it 1 time.

• ##### KateWild

Sorry guys my mistake to get 100 heads in a row is not probable, in fact the chances of that happening are: (1/2) 100 = 1/7.9 x 10 31 . In words, this means one chance in 79 million million million million million (thatâ€™s 79 with 30 zeros after it).

I do agree with the point of evolving complexity, I am just afraid I disagree with Dawkin's point that random mutation is random, the complexities are too uniform and orderly, I believe they are Divine.

Sam - Einstein's opinions on god are no more interesting than my postmans opinions on football.

I am afraid I disagree, how about Dawkin's opnion on God, we can't have one scientist's opinion without the other Bill, that's just not playing football. Beside's I reacall a thread on Einstein's religious beliefs, which lasted a good few pages with many different posters. Seem's it actually was very interesting.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/266157/1/What-were-Albert-Einstiens-Religious-Beliefs#.UppvGMRdW8A

Love Sam xx

• ##### Comatose

Coftys point is, that's one of the fallacies of argument. To say a genius thinks it so it makes it more probable or important.

If the worlds smartest and best chef offered opinions on pest control would it matter?

Einstein was a brilliant scientist but not a theologian. So whether he believed In a personal god or not doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

• ##### cofty

I am just afraid I disagree with Dawkin's point that random mutation is random, the complexities are too uniform and orderly

Mutations are mostly random - there are certain locations in a genome that are more prone to mutate and certain bases that suffer copying errors more than others. Some are harmful, most are neutral, a few are beneficial.

Beneficial ones are those that give their host a slightly better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, ensuring that the mutation spreads through the gene pool.

This is natural selection. Individual changes may be very small but over long periods of time they may accumulate leading to very complex features.

Evolution can't go back to the drawing board. It can only develop exisiting features in a step-by-step process. This tends to lead to designs that are less than optimum. There is no indication of any intelligent designer.

Once you understand more about the mechanisms of evolution you will probably find your incredulity is greatly reduced.

Edited to add - Dawkins opinion on god is not relevant either. All that matters is evidence.