Genetic Variation (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 12:51 (5174 days ago) @ George Jelliss

From you post George:-"Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited."-
The universe is not infinite is it. It is finite in both space and time as current research shows (regardless of whether you believe in the big bang or plasma models.) There is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that proves that beyond doubt. So, this completely discounts the argument proposed by this argument because we have now limited the probability by both time and space(total universal mass). -You're 'slam' relies on the same tired argument of the monkey on a type writer. However, I would again point out that this requires an infinite time limit, which invalidates the argument as applied to abiogenesis and evolution. -Of course, the writer of the article says that creationist misrepresent Borel's law, then proceeds to change the wording of Borel's law: But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur. However, the icing is when the writer envisions the easy way to disprove the probability, yet fails to produce the experiment or results.-My all time favorite of the article though, is the conclusion:
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
Anti-evolutionists, of course, will continue to employ their probability arguments against the natural formation of proteins, cells, and the like, despite everything said in this article. There are two reasons for this. First, in all fairness, their probability arguments often cannot be adequately refuted without a highly technical scientific explanation of the physical processes involved in the "improbable" event in question, and no such discussion was attempted here for the same reason that none is often attempted in public discussions of the issues. -Second, and more importantly, even if all the scientific matters had been discussed, it would make no difference. The opponents of evolution are not interested in good science, and as I have attempted to show in this article, neither are they interested in good mathematics. Hence their arguments are not based on a complete and contemporary understanding of the scientific and mathematical principles that are relevant to the issue. This is yet another reason why creationist material has no business being taught in science classes - it threatens our students' education not only with bad science, but also bad mathematics.-The burden of proof is on the the person proposing the theory, not on those who say the theory is false. That is good science. But science does not apply that rule to macro-evolution, big bang, or abiogensis. That is bad science. When statistical analysis presents something that is so close to being a statistical impossibility, you don't argue that buy saying, it could happen, you provide evidence to show that it DID happen.