• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Is Evolution Probable or Improbable? It Depends On Who You Ask.

Frank Robert

Junior
Joined
Jun 8, 2023
Messages
443
Reaction score
40
Points
28

Creationists often present arguments that aim to challenge the scientific understanding of evolution​


Here are a few of the improbability arguments commonly put forth by creationists:​

Irreducible Complexity: This argument, popularized by biochemist Michael Behe, suggests that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved gradually through natural selection. According to Behe, some cellular structures, such as the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade, require multiple interdependent components to function properly. Creationists argue that these systems could not have evolved in a stepwise manner, as the removal of any one component would render the system nonfunctional. They claim that such complexity implies the involvement of an intelligent designer.

Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Creationists often assert that the physical constants and conditions of the universe are finely tuned to allow for life. They argue that the probability of this fine-tuning occurring by chance is incredibly low, suggesting the intervention of an intelligent creator. They cite examples such as the precise values of fundamental constants like the gravitational constant or the cosmological constant, which they believe are too improbable to have arisen naturally.

Origin of Life: Creationists frequently challenge the scientific understanding of abiogenesis, the natural process by which life is thought to have originated from non-living matter. They argue that the probability of life spontaneously emerging from inanimate materials is astronomically low. They point to experiments attempting to recreate the conditions of early Earth and argue that the complexity and information content of even the simplest living organisms make their origin by chance highly implausible.

It's important to note that while these arguments may be persuasive to some, they have been extensively scrutinized and countered by the scientific community. Critics of these arguments often highlight the misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, the misrepresentation of scientific evidence, or the reliance on gaps in scientific knowledge. Scientists continue to study and investigate these topics, providing evidence-based explanations for the origins and development of life.

ChatGPT
 
Last edited:

Probability is a part of the scientific method​


The scientific method is a process for gathering evidence and using it to test hypotheses. Probability is used to determine how likely it is that the evidence supports the hypothesis.

For example, if you are testing the hypothesis that a certain drug is effective in treating a disease, you would need to gather evidence from a clinical trial. The clinical trial would involve giving the drug to a group of patients and comparing their health outcomes to a group of patients who did not receive the drug.

The probability of the drug being effective would be calculated by comparing the health outcomes of the two groups. If the drug is effective, the patients who received the drug would be more likely to have a positive health outcome than the patients who did not receive the drug.

Probability is also used to determine the statistical significance of a result. Statistical significance is a measure of how likely it is that a result could have occurred by chance. If the result is statistically significant, it means that it is unlikely to have occurred by chance.

The scientific method is a complex process, and probability is just one of the many tools that scientists use to gather evidence and test hypotheses. However, probability is an important tool, and it is used in many different areas of science.

Here are some examples of how probability is used in the scientific method:

Statistical significance: Scientists use probability to determine whether the results of their experiments are statistically significant. This means that the results are unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Confidence intervals: Scientists use probability to calculate confidence intervals. Confidence intervals are ranges of values that are likely to contain the true value of a parameter.
Hypothesis testing: Scientists use probability to test hypotheses. This involves calculating the probability of the data if the hypothesis is true.
Power analysis: Scientists use probability to determine the sample size needed for an experiment. This ensures that the experiment has enough power to detect a statistically significant difference, if one exists.

Probability is a powerful tool that can help scientists to make better decisions about their research. By understanding probability, scientists can be more confident in their results and make more informed decisions about their research.

ChatGPT
 
Last edited:

Creationists often make several mistakes when it comes to discussing the concept of improbability in relation to evolution and the origins of life.​


Some of the common mistakes include:​


Misunderstanding Probability: Creationists sometimes misrepresent or misunderstand the concept of probability. They argue that the probability of complex biological structures or processes arising by chance is extremely low, therefore suggesting the involvement of an intelligent creator. However, this argument ignores the fact that natural selection is a non-random process that acts on variation within populations, leading to the accumulation of favorable traits over time. Probability calculations alone cannot adequately address the evolution of complex systems.

Appeal to Personal Incredulity: Creationists often rely on personal incredulity, stating that they find it difficult to believe or understand how certain biological structures or processes could have evolved. However, individual incredulity does not provide a valid scientific argument. The complexity of a biological system or the lack of a detailed evolutionary pathway does not imply impossibility. Science often addresses complex questions by building on existing evidence and conducting further research.

Ignoring Intermediate Forms: Creationists frequently overlook the existence of intermediate forms or transitional fossils, which provide evidence for the gradual evolution of biological structures. They may argue that the lack of direct fossil evidence for specific transitions undermines the credibility of evolutionary theory. However, the fossil record is fragmentary, and the absence of a specific transitional form does not invalidate the overall evidence for evolution. Additionally, the discovery of numerous transitional fossils, such as Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx, demonstrates the existence of intermediate stages in the evolution of various organisms.

Cherry-Picking Examples: Creationists sometimes focus on highly complex structures or systems, such as the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade, to argue for intelligent design. They claim that these structures could not have evolved through gradual steps. However, this approach overlooks the vast array of simpler biological structures and processes that are well-documented as products of evolution. It is essential to consider the full spectrum of evidence and not solely focus on specific examples that appear more challenging to explain.

Overall, these mistakes reflect a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the scientific concepts and evidence supporting evolution. The scientific community continues to study and research these topics, refining our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the origins and development of life.
Counter arguments to the improbability arguments put forth by creationists include:

Irreducible Complexity: Critics argue that the concept of irreducible complexity misunderstands the gradual nature of evolution. Complex biological systems can evolve through the accumulation of small, beneficial changes over time. It is possible for intermediate stages of a system to serve different functions, gradually leading to the development of the final, functional structure. Examples of this can be found in the evolution of the eye or the blood clotting cascade, where simpler forms exist in different organisms, serving different purposes.

Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Scientists propose the anthropic principle to address the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. It suggests that we observe the universe the way it is because it is compatible with our existence. In other words, if the physical constants and conditions were different, life as we know it might not have emerged, but different forms of life or universes with different conditions could still exist. Additionally, the concept of the multiverse suggests that our universe is just one of many, each with different physical parameters, and it is not surprising that we find ourselves in one suitable for life.

Origin of Life: While the exact mechanisms of abiogenesis are still being explored, scientists have made significant progress in understanding how the building blocks of life, such as amino acids and nucleotides, can arise naturally. Experiments have shown that under plausible prebiotic conditions, these molecules can form through chemical reactions. Furthermore, researchers have proposed various models, such as the RNA world hypothesis, which suggest that self-replicating RNA molecules could have been the precursors to life.

In addition to these specific counter arguments, it is important to note that scientific theories are supported by a wide range of evidence from various disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and geology. The consensus within the scientific community is that the theory of evolution provides the most comprehensive and well-supported explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

ChatGPT
 
Last edited:

Scientists are not immune to making mistakes.​


Here are a few mistakes scientists might occasionally make in relation to probability and improbability:​


Underestimating Rare Events: Scientists may sometimes underestimate the probability of rare events occurring. They might assume that certain events are highly improbable based on current knowledge or limited data. However, as new evidence emerges or more comprehensive data is collected, the perception of what is improbable can change. This can lead to a failure to consider alternative possibilities or overlook significant outliers in scientific research.

Overreliance on Statistical Significance: Scientists sometimes rely solely on statistical significance to draw conclusions about the likelihood of an event or hypothesis. While statistical significance is an important tool, it does not provide a complete picture of the probability or improbability of an event occurring. It is crucial to consider effect sizes, sample sizes, and the context in which the research is conducted. Focusing solely on p-values can lead to misinterpretation or overgeneralization of results.

Ignoring Unknown Variables: In complex systems, scientists may overlook or underestimate the impact of unknown or unaccounted variables on the probability of certain outcomes. Probability calculations often rely on assumptions and simplifications, and the omission of relevant factors can lead to inaccurate estimations of likelihood. Scientists must remain open to the possibility of unknown variables influencing probabilities and continually revise their models and theories accordingly.

Neglecting Long-Term Probabilities: Scientists sometimes fail to consider the long-term probabilities of events or outcomes. Short-term observations or experiments may lead to a certain interpretation of probability, but when considering longer time scales or larger sample sizes, the probabilities can significantly change. Understanding the cumulative effect of probabilistic events over time is essential for comprehensive analyses and predictions.

It is important to note that the scientific method is designed to self-correct and refine understanding through peer review, replication, and further research. Mistakes and biases in probability assessment can be addressed through rigorous scrutiny and collaboration within the scientific community, leading to a more accurate understanding of probabilistic phenomena.

ChatGPT
 
So...you used ChatGPT for an essay on this subject?

Why? Is it supposed to hold some sort of significance or weight? It's already been "broken" and proved to have serious training bias. Like all AI it is only as good as it's programing. /shrug
 
So...you used ChatGPT for an essay on this subject?

Why? Is it supposed to hold some sort of significance or weight? It's already been "broken" and proved to have serious training bias. Like all AI it is only as good as it's programing. /shrug
Why don't you read the arguments and counter arguments instead of prejudging them?
 
Why don't you read the arguments and counter arguments instead of prejudging them?
Because that is an impossibility. We all bring our presuppositions to the table. I acknowledge mine freely and cut to the chase. In it's current form the fear over AI, and ChatGTP in particular, is garbage as is the program.
 
Because that is an impossibility. We all bring our presuppositions to the table. I acknowledge mine freely and cut to the chase. In it's current form the fear over AI, and ChatGTP in particular, is garbage as is the program.
Yes we do. The questions I put to AI were straight forward and any inconsistencies or errors could be easily spotted. If you do not agree with something a simple google search could rectify it. None of us here are claiming grand knowledge so we use the tools that are available to us. I also included mistakes that scientists make. It is should be obvious that there is room on both sides could for improvement.

If you do a simple google search on "what mistakes do creationists make when it comes to discussing the concept of improbability" you will come up with the same creationists' mistakes that are in my post but you will need to open the search results to verify it. Ditto for the mistakes science makes. Go ahead and try it. Then if you find something to disagree with we can discuss it. This way we can both learn something.
 
Yes we do. The questions I put to AI were straight forward and any inconsistencies or errors could be easily spotted. If you do not agree with something a simple google search could rectify it. None of us here are claiming grand knowledge so we use the tools that are available to us. I also included mistakes that scientists make. It is should be obvious that there is room on both sides could for improvement.

If you do a simple google search on "what mistakes do creationists make when it comes to discussing the concept of improbability" you will come up with the same creationists' mistakes that are in my post but you will need to open the search results to verify it. Ditto for the mistakes science makes. Go ahead and try it. Then if you find something to disagree with we can discuss it. This way we can both learn something.
Simply insisting a thing does not make it so. And the use of a biased AI to make a point doubly so. I'm sorry that you feel the need for affirmation on this subject but it should be obvious at this point that it won't come from me. In my world view there is no middle ground.

Now it may shock you, if you do your own research which I'm sure you will, at how very bad these AI bots are due to biased programing. It makes them more or less a curiosity at this point but no more. Even should they become less biased they will hold no water whatsoever in this context as Christians worship a God who is not "improbable" in the least. So from ground zero you are barking up the wrong tree.
 
Simply insisting a thing does not make it so. And the use of a biased AI to make a point doubly so. I'm sorry that you feel the need for affirmation on this subject but it should be obvious at this point that it won't come from me. In my world view there is no middle ground.

Now it may shock you, if you do your own research which I'm sure you will, at how very bad these AI bots are due to biased programing. It makes them more or less a curiosity at this point but no more. Even should they become less biased they will hold no water whatsoever in this context as Christians worship a God who is not "improbable" in the least. So from ground zero you are barking up the wrong tree.
You are pre-judging and committing the same creationists mistakes of avoidance. If I were presented with something I disagreed with even if I was sure I still would do my own research instead of hiding behind claims "oh it be right because AI sometimes hallucinates, etc." I originally thought you were wanted to have a serious discussion, I was wrong. Ah! I learn something new everyday.
 
they have been extensively scrutinized and countered by the scientific community.
I don't disagree...thing is, they have failed.
For example, here's a video...personally I believe it shows ID...or maybe you can explain to me how the "assembly line" of organelle evolved via a process of random chance mutations. Check it out, I think you'll like it.

 
The scientific method is a process for gathering evidence and using it to test hypotheses. Probability is used to determine how likely it is that the evidence supports the hypothesis.
What is the probability that a Swiss watch taken apart and placed in a box, and placed on a shaker will be put back together into a working watch? (Discount a time limit and the law of entropy)
What is the probability that a building that is blown to smithereens will ever evolve into a building again?

What is the probability that you will ever consider that you could be wrong?

As for me, I have had a very personal and real supernatural encounter with my Lord and Savior through revelation given me by Him. Before this occasion, I like you did not believe in His existence, and therefore discounted creation.

Now, what is the probability that millions of other people over the last 2000 years can testify of the exact same revelation given to them as that received by me.
 
I don't disagree...thing is, they have failed.
For example, here's a video...personally I believe it shows ID...or maybe you can explain to me how the "assembly line" of organelle evolved via a process of random chance mutations. Check it out, I think you'll like it.

Frank Robert ....did you miss the video?
 
What is the probability that a Swiss watch taken apart and placed in a box, and placed on a shaker will be put back together into a working watch? (Discount a time limit and the law of entropy)
What is the probability that a building that is blown to smithereens will ever evolve into a building again?

What is the probability that you will ever consider that you could be wrong?
There are many things that we do not know or understand and some of them we will never know or understand. If it is of scientific interest we form testable hypotheses but that does not guarantee we will succeed. So it is ok to say we do not know as opposed to pretending that we do know.
As for me, I have had a very personal and real supernatural encounter with my Lord and Savior through revelation given me by Him. Before this occasion, I like you did not believe in His existence, and therefore discounted creation.
As do many other Christians from many different denominations as well as other religions.
Now, what is the probability that millions of other people over the last 2000 years can testify of the exact same revelation given to them as that received by me.
I am not a statistician. What I do know is you need to form a testable and repeatable hypothesis if you wish to obtain a reliable statistical probability.
 
Last edited:
I believe Meyer will tell you that here are no testable ID hypothesis. What he is doing in the video is using probabilities and many scientists have explained how creationists misunderstand and therefore misrepresent probabilities.

You can find many discussions on probabilities with active scientists and other experts (some of which are creationists) at Peaceful Science, just follow the link.
You seem to be relying on the science of the gaps....that is "we don't know" but we trust that science will fill in the blanks.
 
So...you used ChatGPT for an essay on this subject?

Why? Is it supposed to hold some sort of significance or weight? It's already been "broken" and proved to have serious training bias. Like all AI it is only as good as it's programing. /shrug
It provided a summary of the mistakes and misrepresentations by creationists. It is merely a list to make it easy of where and what to look for. It is like a google search with a some additional information. You can easily follow up on any or all of them and make your own judgements.
 
It provided a summary of the mistakes and misrepresentations by creationists. It is merely a list to make it easy of where and what to look for. It is like a google search with a some additional information. You can easily follow up on any or all of them and make your own judgements.
You presented biased evo-material.

You admitted the evidence-scientist don't know...which means by FAITH you have accepted their biased theory.

I have seen no reason not to stick with the bible.
 
You seem to be relying on the science of the gaps....that is "
I like that, its cute.
we don't know" but we trust that science will fill in the blanks.
I believe that some of the blanks will be filled while others may never filled.

Also, for those of us who have followed "The Limits to Growth" in a few years we may no longer have the resources to fill the gaps. You can get a free copy of The Limits at above link.
 
I like that, its cute.

I believe that some of the blanks will be filled while others may never filled.

Also, for those of us who have followed "The Limits to Growth" in a few years we may no longer have the resources to fill the gaps. You can get a free copy of The Limits at above link.
Currently there is a plan to reduce the population and bring about an age of trans humanism. many refer to it as the system of the beast and can be seen all over the news today if one is awake and looks.
 
Back
Top