From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>

Date: Wed Oct 14 2009 - 00:38:07 EDT

Date: Wed Oct 14 2009 - 00:38:07 EDT

On Oct 13, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Schwarzwald wrote:

*> How does Behe take away support for his claims from the paper? I
*

*> provided the link for you - Behe can speak for himself on this. I
*

*> just provided some quotes and some additional commentary. And you,
*

*> of course, can respond to what Behe says as well. I also asked where
*

*> Behe claims that these things are impossible - he may have done so
*

*> and I simply missed it, so I'd like to see this quote.
*

*>
*

Behe makes a Stats 101 boo boo. He takes the probability of a single

mutation and squares it for a double mutation. This is an implicit

assumption of statistical independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

The very title of the Lenski paper reveals that this is NOT true. He

claims that the mutation is contingent, the probability of the second

event is dependent on the first one thus breaking the assumption of

statistical independence. Thus, Lenski refutes Behe. My impossible

claim is the odds that Behe wrongly computes in EoE are vanishingly

small and to use the vernacular the event are impossible. It's like

saying quantum tunneling my fist through the wall is impossible. The

odds are non-zero but so close to zero to be effectively impossible.

Rich Blinne

Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Received on Wed Oct 14 00:38:37 2009

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Wed Oct 14 2009 - 00:38:37 EDT
*