I believe those two probabilities would be the same, actually.
2007-10-30 03:14:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Molten Orange 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
I study physics and know about probability. Both events are equally probable with p=1/1024. Let's now speak about the probability of evolution.
We have 4 different kinds of mutations that can occur to the mutant:
1) The good ones in every aspect
2) The positive ones with something bad in it
3) The negative ones that aren't lethal
4) The ones that coses the mutant to die.
The evolution theory teaches that 4) will be eliminated but the first tree wouldn't. They aren't lethal and would be here in every species. You might now say that they are that we have the deaf, the blind and others and that those are 3) but they aren't. In 3) would be something that every individual in a species has and that is bad. If you look only human body you'll see that there aren't 3) at all and one should be careful to say that there are 2). You can say that there is an appendix and that it doesn't do anything but is that true or we just don't know what it does. You can live without your ear just as you can live without your appendix but you wouldn't live the life with the fullness God intended you to have. We are just to perfect to be random made. HHHHHHHHHH or HTTHHHTTH doesn't apply here because this is the different kind of probability. In your example I'll say that it would be what is the probability of getting 10H out of 10 tosses and what is the probability of getting 6H & 4T? You do the math it seams your good at it: what is the probability of geting so much 1) in this world?
2007-10-30 03:59:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Santras 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The probability is essentially zero. The odds of a planet being in the "habitable zone" is low. There is enough space and stars out there to think that some are in this zone. Even though we have never observed a planet outside of our solar system. (so this would be pure hypothesis based on zero observable evidence.) The probability of life forming spontaneously is essentially zero. The scientists only believe it happened because we see life. But the belief that it spontaneously generated itself is just that, a belief. You could also call it a religion. That's what I call it, the religion of Naturalism. There is no evidence that life can spontaneously generate. All observations and experiments show us that it does not happen. All mathematical models show us that the probability of it occurring is basically zero. So, natural abiogenesis is no more scientific than is Super natural genesis. both are unseen and unprovable so far. I used to belive in the natural origins of life and darwinian evolution. I totally reject those theories now. I studied both sides of the issue - I was indoctrinated into the darwinian side since my early youth- and now I am under the belief that God did create this planet and all the life on it - and He created the entire universe. I do not believe there is life elsewhere in the universe. Since the probability is basically zero that there is - the burden of proof is on the theory that there is life elsewhere. To see that every evolutionist answering this question says things like "ya I totally think there is life everywhere in the universe" only shows me that they are following their religious convictions and not the path of hard science - you know observational evidence - experimentation - and mathematics.
2016-05-26 02:13:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Any pre-determined order has equal probability.
In this case 2^10, or 1 in 1024
And if you are looking to create an E-coli bacteria the creationists are right, it is incredibly improbable.
However, if you are looking to create a self replicating molecule, the odds are just improbable.
If you give it an entire planet to experiment with and a few hundred million years, it comes close to a certainty.
Once you have a self replicating molecule something E-coli like is bound to turn up.
The probability of getting a sequence of heads and tails in ten thousand coin flips is 1:1 or absolute certainty. These idiots are amazed that that particular sequence came up. After all the probability that it would is about 2*10^3010 (That's 2 with 3010 zeros after it) They do not grasp the fact that one sequence HAD to come up.
2007-10-30 03:22:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Simon T 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you flip a coin one million times, the probability that you'll get BOTH patterns at some point are very, very close to 1.
In fact, in modern auditing algorithms, they use the very fact that probability is likely to show up some point at random...............but if the books are "cooked", no human would ever selectively create entries like that.
Coin tosses are independent events. The previous flip does not affect the next flip. Technically, the odds of either are the same.
Santra - to answer your "contradiction" - the 1s have sex a lot more often than the 2s who have sex a lot more often than the 3s.
htfh
2007-10-30 03:13:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Probability is not a fair representation of reality.
The chance of tails is 50%, however proability could reveal tails 100% of the time. This is the error of statistics.
-
The world is the way it is because it is the only functionable reality. The laws of physics were not created, they were just observed.
-
Take a filliped coin... Yeah, there is chance involved, but the coin itself only exist because it is "allowed to"
-
Sure we "designed" the coin, but only under the laws of nature.
-
The coin, through time will eventualy return itself to the original elements it was made from. This is an example of physics, NOT chance or probabliity.
-
If gravity exist, we say "WOW this must have been created, because it exist", but if it didnt, the world would operate in a different way, and people would say, "WOW this exist in this way, therefore there must have been a creator.
2007-10-30 03:15:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by bubbie_king 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
The probability factors in "well, if we were 1/6 of a nanometer closer to the sun" as one against what we have. Or 1/6 of a nanometer farther from the sun. Minuscule changes that would have no effect whatsoever are included in these "incredible" odds.
People can't seem to get through their heads that what we've got now didn't HAVE to happen. Life could be completely different on Earth, or have no life at all, and no one would notice any difference. Europa has the possibility of life, and no one cared until we found that it's covered in ice and has a hot core. Life is incidental.
2007-10-30 03:18:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by 雅威的烤面包机 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I'm thinking you're a simple minded person who rejects one concept and wants to justify it. The problem is, the absolute truth is that Jesus existed. He performed miracles and told the story of His Father in Heaven.
You have the freedom to not believe, but please don't try to justify it with some nuerotic coin toss theory. Try explaining away all the evidence.
Warning: Many people have tried and failed.
2007-10-30 03:34:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Each toss is unrelated to each other, and both events have the same chance of occurring.
2007-10-30 03:14:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by 10SNE1 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
coin tossing and God creating aren't even close, next ; a quarter , a universe
2007-10-30 03:13:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by sml 6
·
1⤊
3⤋