[...]
>
>I think your problem here is that you are examining the probabilities
>fallaciously. If you have a jar full of 100 marbles, and you take them out
>randomly one at a time, what is the probability that you would take them
>out exactly in the same sequence again? *Infinitesimal*. Far below 0.95%,
>to be sure!
>
>Now, by your reasoning, this means that it was in fact *practically
>impossible* to have taken out the marbles in that sequence. But that
>clearly isn't true. Moreover, no matter which sequence you happened to
>choose, it would have the same miniscule probability as any other. The
>question I put to you is: is it a "miracle" that you took out the marbles
>in exactly the sequence that you did? Is it scientifically or logically
>implausible? Obviously not.
>
>This is the fundamental problem with creationistic probability
>calculations. They are based on the mistaken presumption that, if the
>exact repetition of something is monumentally improbable, then the original
>event is essentially impossible.
>
>(By the way, I'm sure others have brought up this point already. Still, it
>seemed to be worth repeating.)
>
One does indeed see this point raised repeatedly in evolution/
creation discussions. I would argue that the probability
argument is indeed fallacious but not for this reason.
Before actually presenting my argument I would like to create
some interest by proposing the following wager (hypothetically
of course, since I'm not a betting man :). The wager I will
borrow from the book <Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of
Reason Rule Our Minds>:
===============================================
I have just tossed a coin 7 times, and I ask you, who
have not seen the result, to guess which of the three
sequences below represents the sequence of my results.
I guarantee that one of the sequences is genuine. If
you don't get it right, you lose 10 dollars; if you
win, you get 30. H stands for heads, and T for Tails.
1. HHHHTTT
2. THHTHTT
3. TTTTTTT
On which would you bet? Let's think for a moment before
going on.
Experiments with a great many subjects have shown that
the bets will be placed in the following order:2,1,3.
The preference for the second sequence is very strong.
But probability theory tells us that in seven tosses of
a coin the probabilities are totally even, and we rationally
should be quite indifferent to which of the three sequences
we choose. The person who chooses 2 is prey to one of the
most common cognitive illusions; she mistakes the most
<typical> for the most <probable>.
-- Piattelli-Palmarini, <Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of
Reason Rule Our Minds>, John Wiley & Sons, 1994, p. 49-50.
=========================================================
OK, so if you really believe what you wrote (please don't
take this the wrong way, its just for fun) then you should
be willing to enter into this type of wager with me. I will
play the role of the person suffering from "cognitive illusions".
Hey, it comes naturally :).
As Pascal might say, the coin has been tossed, how will
you wager? ;-)
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It appears to me that this author is asking
much less than what you are refusing to answer"
-- Galileo (as Simplicio in _The Dialogue_)