Hi,
Not in reply to any particular post, but just for clarification.
Often in arguments involving evolution (of the universe, of life, etc.) the opponents of the theory cite something along the lines of "probability that so-and-so happened by chance (or, often by 'blind chance')". There are three problems with this argument. The first is that it implies that *anything* could happen, when, indeed, the number of things that could happen are limited by various properties and conservation principles. This greatly reduces the potential outcomes, sometimes to just one.
The second problem is that these opponents are often totally ignorant of probability. An event having a low probability of happening on one trial may still have a high probability of happening if sufficient trials are conducted. Think of a lottery, where each individual's chance of winning is small, but the likelihood of *someone* winning (eventually) is nearly one.
The third problem that this argument has is that it inverts the cause and effect. It goes from something like "what is the probability that Earth would be exactly at the right distance from the Sun and have exactly the right ellipticity to support life" to "therefor something must have caused it". That's like saying that the winner of a lottery must have cheated because the odds of winning were so low. Instead, the better way to look at the situation is to consider all the solar systems in the universe and ask what is the probability of at least one having the necessary requirements for life.
All of this is related to the Anthropic principle which, while debatable, at least starts from the observable (we are, after all, here).
--Pete
Not in reply to any particular post, but just for clarification.
Often in arguments involving evolution (of the universe, of life, etc.) the opponents of the theory cite something along the lines of "probability that so-and-so happened by chance (or, often by 'blind chance')". There are three problems with this argument. The first is that it implies that *anything* could happen, when, indeed, the number of things that could happen are limited by various properties and conservation principles. This greatly reduces the potential outcomes, sometimes to just one.
The second problem is that these opponents are often totally ignorant of probability. An event having a low probability of happening on one trial may still have a high probability of happening if sufficient trials are conducted. Think of a lottery, where each individual's chance of winning is small, but the likelihood of *someone* winning (eventually) is nearly one.
The third problem that this argument has is that it inverts the cause and effect. It goes from something like "what is the probability that Earth would be exactly at the right distance from the Sun and have exactly the right ellipticity to support life" to "therefor something must have caused it". That's like saying that the winner of a lottery must have cheated because the odds of winning were so low. Instead, the better way to look at the situation is to consider all the solar systems in the universe and ask what is the probability of at least one having the necessary requirements for life.
All of this is related to the Anthropic principle which, while debatable, at least starts from the observable (we are, after all, here).
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?