Hijack from Understanding Evolution

[DANIEL35]

I believe that evolution is highly unscientific since the statistical possibility of any level of sophisticated integrated life developing randomly unguided through random geentic mutation and natural selection based on said traits expressed via said genetic mutation is (or seems to me) so highly unlikely as to be impossible rationally - even given full 5 billion years - i would galdly discuss this with someone who is able to rationally counter this by having regard inter alia to statistical probability -  

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, DANIEL35 said:

I believe that evolution is highly unscientific since the statistical possibility of any level of sophisticated integrated life developing randomly unguided through random geentic mutation and natural selection based on said traits expressed via said genetic mutation is (or seems to me) so highly unlikely as to be impossible rationally - even given full 5 billion years - i would galdly discuss this with someone who is able to rationally counter this by having regard inter alia to statistical probability -  

You are the one making the unsubstantiated claim,

Please provide mathematical backing for it.

Edited November 1, 2021 by studiot

[MigL]

1 hour ago, DANIEL35 said:

I believe that evolution is highly unscientific

Anytime someone uses the words 'I believe' in a discussion about science, I assume the person doesn't know what they are talking about.

Science doesn't deal with 'beliefs'.
It deals with observational evidence, facts and mathematics.
When you can step up and deal with science in the required manner, we will engage in discussion, as we are a science site, and will not have religious ( or otherwise ) beliefs forced on us.

[TheVat]

Also be wary of critiques of ET which go after only one type of evolution when there are five different mechanisms.  Especially if the critique centers on mutation,  which by itself generates variation but not evolution.   Evolution arises only in the interaction of the mutant variation with the other four mechanisms.   

As for the attack on mutation plus NS,  one need only find an adult who can drink a glass of milk to dismiss it.   

[beecee]

4 hours ago, DANIEL35 said:

I believe that evolution is highly unscientific since the statistical possibility of any level of sophisticated integrated life developing randomly unguided through random geentic mutation and natural selection based on said traits expressed via said genetic mutation is (or seems to me) so highly unlikely as to be impossible rationally - even given full 5 billion years - i would galdly discuss this with someone who is able to rationally counter this by having regard inter alia to statistical probability -  

I believe you have an agenda to be able to sit there and tell such bald face nonsense, when the scientific evidence for evolution is beyond question...so much so that it can now be defined as fact, evidenced of course by even the Catholic church recognising it.  And if we need to talk about the origin of life, so far I have only heard of one scientific hypothesis with that regard...its called Abiogenesis.  

[Arete]

4 hours ago, DANIEL35 said:

I believe that evolution is highly unscientific since the statistical possibility of any level of sophisticated integrated life developing randomly unguided through random geentic mutation and natural selection based on said traits expressed via said genetic mutation is (or seems to me) so highly unlikely as to be impossible rationally - even given full 5 billion years - i would galdly discuss this with someone who is able to rationally counter this by having regard inter alia to statistical probability -  

Citing low probability as a dismissal of evolution is a form of the irreducible complexity fallacy. 

An experiment I do in my classes is to get every member of the class to roll a dice. Their result is written on the board to produce a sequence. The probability of the sequence is determined as 1/6 to the power of the number of students in the class. This is inevitably a very, very small number. I then state "It took X minutes to produce an event with Y probability of happening. What's the probability of each possible combination? (answer: Y). What's the probability of getting a result (Answer: 1)." Most students get the point and we can move beyond the fallacious argument.