This is a ludicrous use of probability, Joseph. Why set an arbitrary limit
of 100 on the number of bets? If I bet once or 100 times on an event
whose probability is 2.3 x 10^75 you are absolutely right that I'll likely
lose. However, if we bet 2.3 x 10^75 times, I'll likely win at least one.
Despite having your error pointed out numerous time, you continue to invoke
only a portion of probability measurements in your argument and blatantly
ignore the remainder of probability statistics. As a result, your specific
argument from probability is not only unconvincing, it is misleading.
Stated differently, if I have a virus that inserts randomly into the DNA of
mammalian cells, the chance that one virion infecting one cell will disrupt
a gene called c-myc is extremely rare. I would not bet on it. On the
other hand, If I have several million virions and add them to a plate
containing about 10^7 cells, a few cells may in fact have the virion
inserted into the c-myc gene. The probability of this happening under
these conditions is very high, approaching unity. I suggest that you,
Joseph, put your money where your mouth is and bet me on this.
Even more interesting, the 1-50 or so cells that have the c-myc gene
disrupted by such a virus will have a growth advantage and can be selected
easily from the millions of others that do not. The long odds of this
event happening in any given cell are overcome by sheer number and
selection so that eventually, the whole tissue culture plate consists of
cells with c-myc disrupted by a virus.
Evolution science has areas that can be criticized, but using bad science
only hurts your cause, Joseph.
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Ph: 608-263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave
Madison, WI 53792
http://www1.bocklabs.wisc.edu/profiles/Clark,Steven.html