From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 05:37:06 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

stuart@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
> : > : > In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
> : > : > bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite stateme
> : > : > is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
> : > : 
> : > : Where did you get this "actual fact"?
> : > 
> : > The probability of ANY EVENT occuring is bounded by 0 and 1 - by
> : > definition. 
> : 
> : Yes, any probability is bounded by 0<p<1. But there are also sets of
> 
> Actually it's 0<=p<=1.

Yes, that's right. Our error in notation.

> : probabilities that are bounded by numbers different from these. For
> : example, the set of probabilities associated with the single toss of a
> : coin is bounded by .25<p<.75. This is true because p=.5.
> 
> Only for a FAIR coin, assuming it cannot land on its edge... but I guess
> this is just nit picking :) (Also how can a single number express a
> set of probabilities?)

Yes, this is nitpicking. "p" is used precisely because it can have more
than one value. We could have said p[heads]=.5 and p[tails]=.5.

> : This is a "more definite statement" than saying 0<p<1, yet it is not
> : intellectual fraud.
> 
> Not the point, is it? By your argument p is also bounded by 0.3 and 0.6,
> 0.2 and 0.8 etc. The original point was that you contested where the
> "actual fact" came from - probability theory.

No. He made the statement that "any more definite statement is an
exercise in intellectual fraud" to which we object, since it is not
justified except, apparently, by his opinion. We therefore showed an
example which met his criterion of 0<=p<=1 but also made a "more
definite statement", namely that .25<p<.75, which is not at all
fraudulent. We did this to show that his criterion for "intellectual
fraud" was not valid. He did not offer any justification for his
proposition that the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
bounded by 0 and 1 and no other numbers.

Of course, it is obvious that he means that there is no way to determine
the probability exactly, and that therefore the best estimate is the
tautological one: that all probabilities are bounded by 0 and 1. But
this is a fruitless statement, and we regard it simply as an attempt to
dismiss the question entirely by a person who does not want to be
bothered with trying to answer it. We, on the other hand, want to
address it, so we need a more definite criterion than the vacuous
0<=p<=1.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------