Re: Probability question

Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:19:01 -0400

At 08:07 AM 10/15/98 -0400, Randy wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for the detailed feedback. I will check those
>websited you mentioned a return with any more questions I have.
> One question I have now though relates to your comments about the
>orbital path of a planet. Isn't the probability of an elliptical path
>very high due to the effects of gravity?
>

Actually, the elliptical path follows as a direct consequence
of the inverse square law of gravity and so any discussion of
this wrt probability is erroneous. This is the point of the
example.

For the case of biological evolution and abiogenesis we expect
something in between the two extremes of purely stochastic
(by chance) and purely deterministic. So, basically, the
probability calculation, which assumes the extreme condition
of pure chance is erroneous wrt any other situation.

Joseph claimed he was giving a probability wrt the evolution
of a protein when as a matter of fact he gave a result valid
only for pure chance.

This is immediately obvious to anyone who takes a look at
Yockey's book. The number Joseph quoted appears in a section
of the book with the title <9.2 The probability of generating
protein sequences by chance>.

I would invite Joseph once again either to (1) retract and
apologize or (2) answer the criticism.

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_)