nine_one_4 wrote:
There are only two possible outcomes for the organism after each mutation - it either survives or it dies.


Sorry, this is not true for each mutation. There are more results possible. We might argue about the very first one, but not any of the remaining mutations. What are your exact "survival" parameters? Unless defined, we cannot propose there are only two results possible.

Amazing how foolish you people are. I almost feel sorry for you. God is long-suffering for the sake of you idiots - I just wish he would wrap it up.

Probably someone has proposed that. I'm just showing how an extraordinarily large number of events can lead to a significant number of "unlikely" events.

nine_one_4 wrote:
Should taking at least one probability and statistics course be required...

Well? Passing a test or course does not guarantee you understood it! I thought we were expounding on the benefits of logical and critical thinking. I see we have digressed into fairy tale land.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1150844257.jpg

Reminds me of that great exchange in A Fish Called Wanda.

Otto: "Don't call me stupid! I'm NOT stupid! Do stupid people read PHILOSOPHY?"

Wanda: "Yes, Otto, they do. They just don't understand it.

LOL!!!

Since we digressed to disproving evolution...

http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

I believe in God and probability. Doesn't mean evolution didn't happen, and you can talk/post 'till you're blue in the face but you can't disprove evolution any more than you can prove (prove = scientific meaning) Creation.

Creationism means God had "Hands on".

Evolution means "Let's see what happens when I let go of the controls".

Interference with the process vs. non-intervention.

How about that for an idea? Lets everyone into the tent.

I've posted the link below before, but it is relevant yet again. This link does a commendable job in explaining the "probabilities" associated with abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, so all of you trying to disprove the theory of evolution by showing the improbability of abiogenesis are barking up the wrong tree.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

IROC:

Thanks for the post. Very interesting and a considerable number of references.

Yeah, talkorigins is a gold mine. Probably one of the best sites on the internet IMO. I would implore anyone who has doubts about the theory of evolution to spend some time on that site.

Mike

Frankly, the Evolution vs. Creationism would puzzle Lemuel Gulliver just like the "Big Endians" and the "Little Indians" war over the proper end to break on a boiled egg.

Much ado about nothing.

i dated a girl who worked for a large drug co. that promoted cardiazem. she constantly traveled all over the country to structure and gather the stats. her job was to keep ongoing studiy statistics and present them for the package inserts. one weekend, on a friday, she announced that we certainly could not go out as hse had to "redo" the study because one of the participants had died. i asked her if her BSN had included a stats course. "NO, I hate statistics"

lol, but true. after the co. lost cardiazem, the co. folded, offered her a position in canada they knew she would not take, and laid her off.

a similar situation was covered on 60 MINUTES years ago.

The more interesting schnerio is if a chimp actually did type the Gettysberg address but in ancient hebrew not kings english - the chances are pretty much the same (like 1x10^29). Or better yet, how about that chimp typing it all correct until the last period which he puts in a ? instead.

The odds are the same pretty much. I think there is more of a chance for self-replicating molecules...


As for the question, not only stats but higher math and logic as well.

Teaching statistics in HS would put a big dent in lottery income.... :D

The statistics that is most relevant for graduating HS students could be taught in a few days. Things like "The chances for a random event happening are not greater if the event hasn't occurred in a while." People who haven't had statistics commonly think that a random event is "due" if it hasn't happened in a while i.e. if you throw a die 5 times and you don't get a "6" that somehow you are more likely to get a "6" on the next throw than it was on the very first one. (In reality, it all the throws have a 1:6 chance of getting a "6".)

They ought to teach some sort of critical thinking to help people see through misleading advertising, slanted news and political statements.
-Chris