Warp wrote:
> 1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small,

Not just that's too small, but is unrelated to the actual value of N in any 
way. It's too small because he wants it related somehow to the wrong value 
on top.

What he's doing is taking (say) the formula which is the equivalent of "for 
what percentage of time that you roll two dice do you get a total of seven." 
Instead of having "number of combinations that total to seven divided by 
total number of possible pairs of dice", he's saying "roll the dice three 
times. Note it doesn't come up seven any of those three times. Probability 
that it comes up seven is 0 / 3."

> 2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
> I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
> value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
> without really saying why, or what it should be.

M(Ex) is the number of ways you can get the result you're looking for by 
arranging proteins (not the way they happen to be arranged today, which is 
what Durston says). You divide it by all the possible ways you can arrange 
proteins (not all the ways that they've already been arranged, which is what 
  Durston says).

Durston doesn't do anything with M(Ex).

The formula says "the likelihood of a random protien doing X is the number 
of protiens that do X divided by the total number of possible protiens." 
Makes sense, yes?

Durston says "The likelihood of finding exactly how we evolved is 1 divided 
by the largest possible number of evolutionary changes in history up to now."

The two would seem to be entirely unrelated.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message