Joseph stated:
"Spontaneous generation, abiogenesis and evolution are less probable than 2.3x10^-75, which is the probability of a perpetual motion machine or that gold is an alloy."
Joseph based this on the argument and calculations by Yockey who showed (and correct me if I am wrong) that the probability of one single protein forming randomly was 2.3e-75. There are several problems with this argument:
1. This is for a single protein but there are many proteins which could take the place of this protein and Yockey's calculations did not take this into account.
2. The probability assumes randomness, not an evolutionary approach. The protein had to be fully functional in one leap.
3. Brian reported that Yockey stated that:
"I showed that one is justified in believing that life originated on Earth (and did not come from outer space,
section 10.8) several to many times in the period between 4.0x10^6 and 3.8x10^6 years ago."-- Hubert Yockey
Brian: "So, Yockey believes that it is justifiable to believe not just in a single origin of life, but multiple
origins of life. How could he possibly believe this in view of the probability he calculated? Either you
misunderstood that calculation or Yockey is stark raving mad. So, my question for you is why you accept without question the computations of a madman."
But Joseph went beyond that and claimed that:
"Scientists base belief on probability of 0.95 or higher. The evolutionist pretends to believe the impossible, which out of politesse may be called miracles. "
Which is also incorrect. Based upon the 0.95 limit, Joseph has just shown that rolling the following numbers: 1 4 3 5 4 3 6 2 3 4 6 4 2 is an impossibility. Heck even rolling a 6 is impossible according to Joseph's logic since the probability is a mere 1/6th.
So let's assume that a single protein's probability is 1e-75:
We now need to determine:
1. How many equivalent proteins are there ?
2. How many places could it have been formed ?
3. How much time /attemps were made ?
Only then can we determine if the outcome that a protein was formed is likely/unlikely.
So to recap, Yockey's argument did not address the probability of abiogenesis or evolution. Joseph did not inform us that Yockey, it the same book concluded that abiogenesis was likely. When we pointed out to Joseph the problems with Yockey's probability and Joseph's 0.95 limit, he resorted to ad hominems, insults and silly bets.
I am hoping to get the discussion back on track.
I am hoping to hear Joseph respond to this using the scientific method. Since he claimed that he considered himself a scientist who followed the scientific method, I feel that Joseph deserves another chance.
So Joseph, show us your argument, not merely quote a number but show how this supports your conclusion that evolution/abiogenesis is not possible.
That would be following 'the scientific method'