I admit in advance that I don’t have robust math to corroborate my claims, for example I can show that it is very improbable to have a random sample of say 10,000 aminoaicds where all of them are left handed , but I can’t calculate the exact probability
The approximate probability would be 1 in 2
^10,000 but this is not an exact number, because I have no knowledge of all the variables
So
Is this type of probability good enough for you, or do you only accept robust and exact math ?
1 this is good enough then I think I can show that abiogenesis is improbable
2 if you need robust math, and would only accept robust math, then one would wonder if you are willing to drop all the theories (including evolution) that are not supported by robust math
No that doesn’t sound like me, I haven made such claims (not in this thread)
No, I don’t have robust maths and I don’t think I need robust maths
I didn’t say that math is irrelevant, I said that you don’t need the exact math’s in order to establish that something is improbable.
For example you cant calculate the exact probabilities of a monkey typing random letters in a key board, and end up with a coherent sentence with say 10 words and 50 letters. But you can say that such this in very, very improbable.
but you haven’t shown that his maths are flawed, or wrong, all you (and you source) did was to show that his math are incomplete and don’t account to all the variables.
for example Imagne that I try to refute
@TagliatelliMonster maths
About 3000-ish known ERV's in the genome.
About 3 billion potential insertion spots.
Sharing an ERV without common ancestry: 1 in 3000*3 billion.
Sharing 2 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)²
Sharing 3 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)³
and I write an easy showing that his maths are Incomplete, because he did considered hot spots, nor natural selection , nor the probability of getting a retrovirial infection in the first place
My criticism would be correct, but @tag conclusions would still be true, “it is very improbable for 2 organisms to share ERVs by chance” the only problem would be that he doesn’t have the exact maths, so one can´t say exactly what are the chances.
In other words, I dont claim that you or your source are factually wrong, just that they failed at refuting the conclusions or the central point of the argument,