I hope you do not mind me asking you to check out the details. In fact I read
your whole book and your point about the redundant sequence matching of the
amino acids alerted me to a compelling argument for common descent. I pursued
this point further and looked up a lot of DNA sequences and did my own
comparisons and discovered compelling evidence for common descent which made
me make the transition to theistic evolution which I documented in an article
(http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/descent/descent.htm) on my web site in case
you are interested.
---------------------
Actually, I do not think your example applies to my article. In your case S =
A = 10^67; thus, I would calculate P1=1 not 10^-67. Now if success was defined
not by just achieving any configuration, but one specific configuration out of
all possible then S=1, A=10^67 then P1=10^-67. I realize many apologist use
unconservative means for determining "S". I would hope before you further
criticize my article that you would understand the conservative way I propose
to calculate S. Read my Daniel Messiah in the Critic's Den
(http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/critic7.htm) to see a good example of the
conservative calculation. It may be the first time you have seen the use of
such a conservative approach.
P = N * P1, P1 = S / A
P: Conservative estimate of probability
N: Conservative estimate of number of attempts
P1: Conservative estimate of probability for one attempt
S: Conservative estimate of possible successful configurations
A: Conservative estimate of all possible configurations
In a message dated 1/10/99 7:23:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
grmorton@waymark.net writes:
> When you shuffle a deck of cards they can be shuffled in 10^67 different
> ways. Thus the order of the deck you have, has a probability of occurrence
> of 10^-67.
>
> Thus the order of your deck of cards didn't happen.
>
> One can't calculate probabilities easily after the fact.
>
> Thus low probability cases do not infallibly point to God.
> glenn