Re: Irreducible Complexity

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:05:13 -0500

At 11:02 AM 9/10/98 -0700, Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
>prosperous 21st century.
> A billion to one is Dawkins' estimate for the spontaneous generation of
>a cell from the primordial soup (see The Blind Watchmaker).
> Scientists don't bet on a cause unless the odds are 20+ to one in their
>favor. What do you, Tim, call someone who bets when it is 10^90 to one
>or even only 1 billion to one against him?

This is an awful use of statistics--it compares apples to oranges.
Besides, the odds of an event happening must be factored by the number of
chances the event has to occur. For instance, when I try to express a
foreign gene in bacteria, the transfection efficiency is very low, maybe 1
in a million. Nevertheless, if I use several hundred million bacteria and
several million DNA molecules a few bacteria will successfully take up the
DNA. Then I provide a selective environment so that the successful
transfectants have a growth advantage. So, long-shot odds do not tell us
the true chance of seeing an event happen.