From: jasonh@aeras.uucp (Jason Harris)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why evolution is a BETTER theory (for Bob Bales)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:04:57 GMT
Reply-To: jasonh@aeras.UUCP (Jason Harris)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Arix Corporation, San Jose, CA.

In article <4999@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Bob Bales) writes:


>1. To begin with, it is theorized that what is evolved depends on what
>   variations occur and what the selection pressures are.  The results are not
>   preordained.  Evolution could producle multiple possibilities.  Thus, it is
>   subject to the same argument Matt uses against creation.
>
>   Consider what is necessary for man and apes to have evolved from a common
>   ancestor:
>
>   A. The common ancestor would have had to exist.
>
>   B. The gentic material of the common ancestor would have had to be capable
>      of variation in the direction of apes.
>
>   C. There would have had to be selection pressure in the direction of apes.
>
>   D. The gentic material of the common ancestor would have had to be capable
>      of variation in the direction of man.
>
>   E. There would have had to be selection pressure in the direction of man.
>
>   This is heavily biased in favor of evolution, since there should be many
>   more steps. B, C, D, and E should be repeated for each of the intermediates
>   needed along the path.
>
>   We do not see direct evidence for any of these.  What probability should we
>   assign?  If we use a generous 0.9, we get 59%.  If we reason that, with
>   no better information, we should use an 0.5 probability for each item, we
>   get an overall probability of only about 3%.

P(A and B and C and D and E) = P(A).P(B).P(C).P(D).P(E)

BUT: This is only true if these events are independent. ie: Given any one of
these events occurring it does not alter the probability of any of the other
events occurring. This is clearly not the case in the events listed in Bob's
article. eg: Occurrence of event C indicates that events A and B must of 
happened.

I'll assume that your mistake is an honest one, and not an attempt to
deliberately mislead, so I feel bound to warn you:

Highschool mathematics is best used for solving problems in highschool 
textbooks. It's application to the real world, particularly something
as complicated as the dynamics of gene populations, is something that 
should be approached with extreme care and consideration.

>Furthermore, Matt agrees that creationism is consistent with the evidence.
>When this is compared with evolution, which is inconsistent with the evidence,
>the conclusion is that creation is more likely to be true.
>
>   Bob Bales
>   Tektronix, Inc.

Your quite right Bob. Creationism does a wonderful job of explaining
observed evidence. Every time something new comes along the Creationists
say "God did that! He invoked a supernatural event and.... well it just 
happened!" This is a little too shallow for my tastes. The trouble with God
is that you never know what its going to do next. Hence the problems 
with creationist theory: No predictive ability and no consistent causal 
explanations of observed evidence.

*******************************************************************************
Jason Harris (22,Leo,ElectronicE)
 an ex-resident of Perth, Western Australia, lately of Milpitas, California

E-MAIL: apple.com!aeras!jasonh 
SNAIL-MAIL: Arix Corporation, 871 Fox Lane, San Jose CA, 95131 USA
VOICE-MAIL: (USA) 408-922-1839

I don't think. Therefore I am.
*******************************************************************************