Posted: Jun 06, 2017 8:24 pm
Cito di Pense wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:NineBerry wrote:This argument has been debunked a million times.
There are two major problems:
1. Because of the deterministic parts of evolution, the sample space is not as big as you would want us to believe.
2. You talk about the possibility of achieving a very specific genome when the relevant question is what is necessary to achieve any genome. When rolling a dice, the chance to role a six is close to 1/6, but the chance to role and number is close to 1/1.
That's not the only fallacy OrdinaryClay is committing. He can also sample longitudinally, in say, the last 100 million years and find only what he's looking for just at the time he's doing the study. How convenient for that tower of bullshit.
Huh?
Anyway, there is no need to change the sample period, though I did earlier to just include chordates, because we are still the only genome to map itself ever.
So you say. As I suspected, you know fuck all about sample spaces. For your next trick, you should try to say something intelligent about population dynamics. Then give your tie in with deterministic processes. That will shut you up for awhile, unless you care, as expeccted, to go on making stupid statements on topics you cannot show you know anything about.
Remember? You asked the question in the OP. Your tone there implied you know what you're talking about.
I say because you are engaging in non-relevant gobbledygook instead of showing where I misused the term sample space.