Debate: Highly unlikely change can occur, given billions of years and countless opportunities?

Question

Post1: even something with a "chance" that seems "very small" to us (thinking on a human time-scale) can still easily occur when given billions of years.

Post2: There is a 1 in 14 billion chance that somebody will win the lottery, but it happens most weeks. Explain that. As there are only 60,000,000 people in the country, and not all buy a ticket, it should be impossible.

Actual odds: 1 chance in 10 for a random mutation to happen. 100 changes needed to make a new protein or function that can be selected. Odds are 1/10 times 1/10 for 100 multiplications or 1 chance in a googol.

One would need Billions of Billions of universes to have enough particles to equal a googol. In time scale, this is not billions of years, but an eternity. If one then tries to consider a 3 billion line strand of dna, then the probability is infinitesimally small. It is not probable. This is not using actual probabilities, but very favorable 1 chance in 10.

Any element of chance is unlikely.

Kathryn, your profile states: Read, think, analyze and above all, try to listen to others with an open mind.

The fossil record is a fact that shows change occurred over billions of years. Natural selection as a factor in change, is a fact.

The origins of life theories are currently science fiction and not a fact, research it. Natural selection that creates new information is totally unproven and highly debatable, research it.

Evolution "can" be used as an explanation for complex structures "if" we can "imagine"

There are a number of "faith" statements in this.

I can imagine the theory, and it makes sense as writen. But there is no empirical evidence to support it, and any element of random chance approaches ininite improbability.

In a post of a question, there is no room to add backup details.

Answer 1

I'm sorry I don't have enough faith to believe that goopy things wandered out of a swamp and over time became animals and people. Time is not the answer to everything. Some things can't happen no matter how much time you give it.

Answer 2

Post2: There is a 1 in 14 billion chance that somebody will win the lottery, but it happens most weeks. Explain that. As there are only 60,000,000 people in the country, and not all buy a ticket, it should be impossible.

Thank you for disproving your entire thesis and dispelling all your credibility in one fell swoop with this one. People don't win lotteries -- they hold winning tickets. It has nothing to do with population. No lottery that I know of has one in 14 billion odds of one ticket hitting the jackpot (I know of one with 1: 175,711,536, within 100-fold of your made up number). You ignored the fact that people buy more than one ticket (in fact, you seem to have weaseled your wording to imply the opposite).

You are a "statistical" liar of the worst kind. You make up the numbers and then use false models.

Answer 3

Stop being so ignorant. DNA did not just appear fully formed. It was created, like all other biomolecules, by a process of natural selection. Natural selection has nothing to do with chance.

Also, give us some real probabilites! One chance in ten what? Seconds? Thousand years? I think mutations occur more often than you think, your own DNA has probably already mutated once today, more if you've used a microwave.

Answer 4

This is not a matter of debate. Evolution is real.

"Evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures if we can imagine a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simple to the complex. Further, because natural selection will act on every one of those intermediate steps, no single one can be justified on the basis of the final structure toward which it may be leading. Each step must stand on its own as an improvement that confers an advantage on the organism that possesses it."

Answer 5

What Spirit Walker said.

What exactly is your question amidst the gobbledly goock of random numbers. I don't know what point you are trying to make, and worse, I don't get the sense you do either.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you appear to have very little knowledge, I'm just not sure of what.

Answer 6

"Natural selection that creates new information is totally unproven and highly debatable". This is just plain wrong but you keep repeating it. Mutations add information frequently. It has been copiously observed. This is what happens when you get your 'facts' from propagandists and determinedly ignore any counter information. Please check the biological literature.

eg (out of 1000's):

Answer 7

You have a flaw in your math somewhere. Al;so in your logic. If something is not impossible then it is in the inverse certain.
If the exteme case of a random event happening woiuld you still argue that it was impossible, or would you argue devine intervention.
Or are you actually saying that we are here by cosmic fluke.
you don't seem to sure.

Answer 8

You string together a mess of statistics (no validation) to prove what? I can't tell if you are pro evolution (which is what that mess looks like) or anti (in which case, you lack of logic embarrasses the rest of us who are). Gibberish doesn't equal a valid argument, one way or the other.

Answer 9

Your constant asking of the same question just proves your prefered ignorance in this matter. You're not looking for an answer you're trying to give one.

Answer 10

The more simple the lifeform, the quicker the mutation. I don't think that you have your numbers right...or the concept of BILLIONS of years fully wrapped around your cerebral cortex.