> Pim:My argument is that we do not know what life forms are possible and
that the apparant fine-tuning might merely point to the fact that exactly this life form is the one that could evolve. So the fine tuning has killed off all other possibilities.
> But that does not show design.
> >
>
> Randy: I would tentatively agree and say that at the current stage of research
> science can neither confirm nor deny the ID argument. If further research
> ever does show that:
>
>
> Randy: 1. Ours is the only kind of life that can exist
>
> Pim:That will be quite a task
>
>
> OR
>
> Randy: 1a.The other kinds of life that can exist could also only begin in
> narrow ranges of the physical constants in the universe.
>
> Pim:But many narrow ranges might fill the whole range.
Yes, I think if the ranges were non-overlapping this would be a
necessary consideration. Good point.
>
> AND
>
>
> Randy: 2. Ours is also the only universe that has ever existed or ever will
> exist
>
> Pim:That's irrelevant. Like a hand of cards having a low probability,
one cannot argue against the fact that the hand was dealt.
I wrote this in response to that argument back on October 14.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Bronson <randy@Techsource.COM>
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Probability question
As a layman with no scientific training I've been observing on the
list for several months. But I've been intrigued by the recent
discussion on probability and would like to pose a question.
Joseph's original contention was that abiogenesis was an event so
improbable that it could not have happened without intelligent
intervention. His viewpoint was argued against by noting that a
particular hand of cards dealt to a player or a particular roll of
the dice over ten trials were also seemingly improbable events which
happened nevertheless. But it seems to me that these examples deal
with a different type of situation than the one that Joseph originally
described.
In Joseph's situation a particular subset of all possible outcomes
was specified in advance. It was not denied that some amino acids
would form chains of varying lengths only that no functional proteins
would be form(and as Pim has correctly pointed out there is more that
one functional amino acid chain that could be formed). In the counter-
examples that were offered ANY dealt hand of cards or ANY roll of the
dice can be used as examples of an improbable event that actually
happens. To bring the idea of the wager back into the discussion,
would you bet ten thousand dollars that you would draw the same hand
after the deck is shuffled or that you could roll the dice in exactly
the same sequence again?
A process which could produce any one of a thousand outcomes only
produces one. That outcome does in fact occur but to specify it in
advance would be very difficult. It seems to me that this is the
sense in which Joseph's critique is valid.
Randy Bronson
>
> Randy:then I think the ID argument would be confirmed.
>
>
>