There are two ways of looking at the probability of a lightning strike.
One is, to look at a specific bolt, and ask how big is the chance is, that this bolt "chose" the specific path it ran.
"Infinitesimally small to impossible", is probably the right answer". My personal guess would be "Impossible" because of quantum uncertainty.
The stacking of low probability upon low probability would leave the difference meaningless.
Another way of looking at the probability, is calculating how big the probability is of any, non-specific, lightning strike happening in a thunderstorm.
In that case the probable answer would be "Close, or equal to, one hundred percent."
This way of reasoning is more studying the process, rather than studying the history of one event
To apply this metaphor to evolution, one of the most important arguments against evolution by natural selection (NS), is that is supposed to be impossible because of stacking of low probability upon low probability, just like with the specific bolt.
My suspicion is, that people like Meyers look at the issue exactly like this. They see a specific organism, and take the path it followed in the space of potential evolutionary possibilities,
and see it as the only possible one.
To put it in another way, if we could start evolution over from a certain point, the chance that we got the same set of species, would indeed be almost impossibly small.
The chance that we would get a completely other set of species would be almost certain. Though, my guess is that they would fill some of the same niches.
I tried a few times to get this point across, but never got any real reaction to it.
That is why is why i want to ask some of our Discovery Institute loving friends on this forum (David?, Jim?...) , do you think this is important? I certainly think it is.
Do you think the astronomical odds, brought against evolution by the Discoverites, are about 'specific lightning bolts'? Or do you think their calculations take into account the possibility of 'any non-specific lightning strike'?
One is, to look at a specific bolt, and ask how big is the chance is, that this bolt "chose" the specific path it ran.
"Infinitesimally small to impossible", is probably the right answer". My personal guess would be "Impossible" because of quantum uncertainty.
The stacking of low probability upon low probability would leave the difference meaningless.
Another way of looking at the probability, is calculating how big the probability is of any, non-specific, lightning strike happening in a thunderstorm.
In that case the probable answer would be "Close, or equal to, one hundred percent."
This way of reasoning is more studying the process, rather than studying the history of one event
To apply this metaphor to evolution, one of the most important arguments against evolution by natural selection (NS), is that is supposed to be impossible because of stacking of low probability upon low probability, just like with the specific bolt.
My suspicion is, that people like Meyers look at the issue exactly like this. They see a specific organism, and take the path it followed in the space of potential evolutionary possibilities,
and see it as the only possible one.
To put it in another way, if we could start evolution over from a certain point, the chance that we got the same set of species, would indeed be almost impossibly small.
The chance that we would get a completely other set of species would be almost certain. Though, my guess is that they would fill some of the same niches.
I tried a few times to get this point across, but never got any real reaction to it.
That is why is why i want to ask some of our Discovery Institute loving friends on this forum (David?, Jim?...) , do you think this is important? I certainly think it is.
Do you think the astronomical odds, brought against evolution by the Discoverites, are about 'specific lightning bolts'? Or do you think their calculations take into account the possibility of 'any non-specific lightning strike'?