From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>

Date: Sat Sep 24 2005 - 02:11:39 EDT

Date: Sat Sep 24 2005 - 02:11:39 EDT

I still struggle with this conceptualization. It sounds like the model

is that of a a bunch of parts lying around with a probability computed

for how they might assemble a single molecule (of DNA).

But in nature, it is not a single-molecule assembly process. Instead

there are bunches [large numbers] of alternative assemblies going on at

any given time, and I don't see this sort of thing figured into

probability calculations.

Am I missing something?

JimA

Iain Strachan wrote:

*>Randy,
*

*>
*

*>You wrote:
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>> Let me start with the well-worn, oft-used analogy of dealing a hand of
*

*>>bridge. Pick up your cards and no matter what cards you have, you could
*

*>>truthfully exclaim that the probability of your being dealt that particular
*

*>>hand is infinitesimally small. But you wouldn't be justified on that basis
*

*>>in accusing the dealer of cheating and manipulating the cards. However, if
*

*>>prior to dealing the cards, someone had written down a possible hand and if
*

*>>after the hand is dealt the cards match that specific pattern, you would
*

*>>indeed be justified in suspecting foul play. The point is that merely
*

*>>having an extremely low probability of occurrence is not an argument for
*

*>>cheating--or for design. Consideration must be given to the bigger picture
*

*>>such as the number of combinations possible. For a hand of cards, the
*

*>>number of possibilities is also vast so that the probability of having a
*

*>>low-probability hand is actually one hundred percent.
*

*>>
*

*>> When applied to your numero/geometrical findings, it isn't nearly as
*

*>>easy to calculate the number of possibilities as it is in a deck of cards.
*

*>>But it is fair to say that the total number of possible geometric or
*

*>>numerical results is incredibly vast and that every one of them has a low
*

*>>probability of occurring. As in the deck of cards, whatever combination
*

*>>arises, it will be a low-probability combination. Even if the combination
*

*>>has some degree of interest, there is no significance whatsoever unless
*

*>>there is a specific prior detailed articulation of the pattern to be
*

*>>expected. No, I'm sorry but Rev. 13:18 doesn't even come close to such an
*

*>>articulation.
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>Your hand of cards example is a good one, but I think the same
*

*>arguments you make about pre-specifying the hand of cards and then
*

*>getting it being "foul play" can reasonably be applied to Vernon's
*

*>findings. I don't have definitive answers yet, but I think one can
*

*>find a genuine low-probability figure that actually means something,
*

*>by using the concept of description length and Kolmogorov complexity
*

*>(indeed I shall shortly be using the concepts of Minimum Message
*

*>Length/Minimum Description length in my professional work).
*

*>
*

*>The key point is that it takes a certain length of description to
*

*>describe 13 cards. If there were another random hand, to describe the
*

*>entire sequence of 26 would take twice as much information to describe
*

*>it. But if, as in your case, a pre-specified hand then turns up in
*

*>your hand, then the entire sequence of 26 can be described in not much
*

*>longer than the 13 because you give the 13 and then say "same again".
*

*>Given this you can then calculate your very low probability and claim
*

*>cheating.
*

*>
*

*>A similar example can be given with coin-tossing. Toss a coin 100
*

*>times and the sequence probability means nothing, even though it is
*

*>2^-100. But toss it again and get a repeat of the same sequence, and
*

*>it does mean something because the entire sequence of 200 can be
*

*>described in a lot less than 200 bits. If a sequence of N bits can be
*

*>described in M bits where M<N then the probability of that happening
*

*>is 2^(N-M) and that will be a meaningful figure.
*

*>
*

*>You say that the number of possible geometric codings of Vernon's data
*

*>must be vast, but each time a symmetry is produced, in principle it
*

*>means that a reduced description length can be found, and a meaningful
*

*>probability ascribed to it. I only looked briefly at Vernon's data to
*

*>see how this could be done, and achieved some low probability
*

*>description-length based answers. They weren't as low probability as
*

*>some of the figures Vernon is claiming, but they were still
*

*>sufficiently low to indicate that some form of numerical design is
*

*>present in the Gen 1:1 sequence. All this does not speculate on who
*

*>the designer might be. A history of Maths professor I know who is an
*

*>atheist was equally convinced that Gen 1:1 was designed when I showed
*

*>him the patterns, but he was convinced that it was human and not
*

*>divine design and that this sort of thing went on a great deal in the
*

*>past.
*

*>
*

*>Regards,
*

*>Iain.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

Received on Sat Sep 24 02:14:35 2005

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Sat Sep 24 2005 - 02:14:35 EDT
*