What RF is avoiding is the problem of the actual reality of the world and wishes to remain entrenched in other worldy pursuits. He prefers the abstraction of probabilities that COULD mean something, or God's that COULD exist, etc.
The problem is, he avoids actual probable events that have real ramifications.
Let's see who is avoiding what. I answer your example below, so provide an actual probable event with real ramifications that has a known causal history and we'll step through the analysis to see what final result we obtain.
[qupte]Lets use the famous "Methinks its like a Weasel". In order for this phrase to randomly generate, we all admit that it would be rare. Very rare, nigh impossible.
However, there are two distinct and seperate mehods for it to occur.'
1. Is that once the "M" is 'selected' (I put it in quotes lest RF thinks God is selecting them), the natural properties of the letters could prefer an "e". If it rejects anything other than an "e" the phrase is created after a few generations. RF knows this but refuses to accept it.[/quote]
This example has something selecting M and then M preferring e. First off, it is a just so narrative with no real world actuality short of a designed computer program that performs this example. Ignoring for the moment that it is not an actual case, one then wonders what this something could be other than design, but let's leave that additional problem also for now. These are both artificial boundary conditions that dramatically reduce the number of permutations available for chance to obtain. When these boundary conditions are included in the calculation, this event has a combined probability very, very, very close to one. This example as described is not rare at all.
2. If the random events cause an "M" and an "e" to combine, and some other condition cause a "Wea" to combine, or a "li" and "ke" combine and come close to each other. We have a different number of pieces that are combining. The reason this is important is because the basic elements of our universe have distinctly different masses and properties, as do many of the physical aspects.
More of the same three problems described above.
That is, the "backloaded info" that RF says must be there, IS there. He can attribute this to God all he wants, and some scientists do, but that is beside the point.
The point is, the real world chances that something is selected is against a backdrop of pre-loaded die and random events.
In summary you are presupposing an artificial just so scenario (despite claiming you would offer an actual one) whereby the landscape of the set of possible permutations for a presumed "rare event" contains a fitness function with continual pathways containing gentle slopes from any arbitrary point in the landscape to the presumed "rare event". If this is the case, then after the probability analysis is complete, once again the probability of obtaining this event is near 1.0. This is not a an example of rare event at all.
Your examples do not deliver on your promise to demonstrate how rare events invalidate probability theory as it relates to limits on probabilistic opportunities. Blind searches and fitness searches are included as components in probability analysis and do not violate the concept of probabilistic resources.
I imagine RF will have to admit that the universe has the characteristics I explain here.
No, I don't see that we can demonstrate that the universe contains any of these claimed fitness functions
So, to move on. A rare event, such as a self replicating chemical that is produced within a pocket of mica is a rare event, but because it exists, the chance for life as we know it changes entirely.
You imply that some mineral has created a fitness function that selects for self replicating molecules , but this also is a just so narrative with no actual example and even if there was an actual example, this event would not be considered probabilistically rare.
RF continually tries to make the process of life into a long stream of random coin flips and they all must be heads up in oder to get what he wants.
The configuration of biologically active chemicals and in particular the portions that store information to build, direct, and manage metabolic and developmental processes are such that there is no chemical affinity to the combinations obtained. There is nothing to predispose the combinations to any particular workable pattern over unworkable patterns. Real observations of biological systems directly and clearly contradicts barney's just so narratives. There is absolutely no chemical basis to suggest that some pathways and some combinations of chemical configurations are preferred over others and therefore no basis to suggest that the kind of fitness function barney presupposes exists.
Life doesn't care what RF wants. RF shouldn't be critisizing the pot maker because he, the pot, can't figure it out.
It is the Evolutionary biologists that can't figure out how materialistic processes could construct the fitness searches barney so desperately wishes to believe exists and have not progressed on this point for 15 years. For my part, we have identified concrete markers for design in biological systems that are only found in systems that are designed. As we continue to understand biological systems better, Genetic Engineers are increasingly successful designing new form and function thus confirming the capability of design to account for observed diversity. Medical researchers continue to progress in reverse engineering the intended designs and this reality is strong confirmation that biological systems are designed.
If at any time in a causal chain, a rare event happens, it can affect the subsequent probability in the specific case we are discussing. Not coin flips. Physical and chemical laws. (Even though, if I flip a coin H, then H again, the odds for 3 H's is rare, but because of the events that preceded I have a 50% chance of getting it. If I get an H, 4 H's is extremely rare, but because of the rare event of 3 H's, I have a 50% chance of getting 4 H's. RF simply looks at the end result and calculates the chance - but this is not how life works - as we observe.)
RF will admit this.
No, this is how one constructs a just so straw man. Your description of probability analysis and chemical affinity is quite poor.
