Fine. Is it your view that sufficient data exists on which we can base an assessment for the probability that a single self-replicating molecule would arise?

I think we have enough information that, if we make a few dozen or hundred assumptions that are not verifiable, we can make a calculaiton based on those assumptions. Each person must decide for themself it that is an adequate assessment. Personally, I think the whole notion of applying probabilities post-hoc is somewhat flawed to begin with, but that's for another thread, I should think.

Except that >99% of all the species that have ever lived are known to live now, and >1% of all species are known to be extinct.

Why do you believe that?

"Over 99% of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct"¦"

Except that >99% of all the species that have ever lived are known to live now, and >1% of all species are known to be extinct.

(For some unfathomable reason an "ateleological" argument.)

Never mind the a-/teleology; what about the statistics?

What about dogs? Well there is a 50% chance of a creator, so a 50% chance the dog kind was created. similarly for the cat kind, etc. I seem to remember a figure of 17,000 kinds altogether, each with a 50% probability. Overall then:

p = 0.5^17000
= 1 in 10^5100

Thus it is clear that the probability of the YEC scenario is 1 in 10^5100. Far, far less than what Berlinski calculates for abiogenesis.

Of course, they might be something wrong with my calculation (besides the estimate of 50%). Can anyone see what it is?

Pixie: p(two demons on Mars) = p(demon on Mars) x p(demon on Mars) p(template|self-replicator) = p(template)

Pixie, we are well aware that you are quite the mathematician but do you have the slightest idea as to how a self-replicating RNA molecule would arise on prebiotic earth? There are no probability assessments in the absence of your ability to respond to that question.

OB: I don't know if they are independent or are not, nor do Berlinski or Chu-Carroll. You have to prove independence before you multiply probabilities, or the calculation is meaningless.

Fine. Is it your view that sufficient data exists on which we can base an assessment for the probability that a single self-replicating molecule would arise?

Wrong. The only failing would be the math itself. The argument that OOL is bogus is on firm ground. Have you read the entire essay?

The essay has lots of arguments. I am specifically talking about the argument alluded to in the OP. That uses maths. If the maths fails, that specific argument fails.

Are we in agreement that that specific argument was wrong? Or are you only prepared to go on record as saying that you have not claimed to be impressed by the argument? What is it to be; are you going to stay on the fence, or actually take a position in this argument?

Brad: I understand that there is an increased likelihood of a second demon on Mars if we find the first one.

Pixie: Excellent. Now can see how why this is wrong?

Brad: Have you changed your mind? You indicated previously that "if we find one, the chances of finding another will be much higher."

No, I have not changed my mind. Why would you think that?

How are you doing with these (I know, hoping they will be fogotten):

p(two demons on Mars) = p(demon on Mars) x p(demon on Mars)
p(template|self-replicator) = p(template)

Bradford(1): Chu-Carroll's "correction" is predicated upon an erroneous view of biochemical prebiotic possibilities.

One Brow(1): Chu-Carroll offered no correction at all.

Bradford(2): LOL. Make up your mind. You had written: ""¦and Chu-Carroll corrected him."

Forgive my imprecision. For the purpose of showing Berlinski's calculation to be of no value (the correction that was offered), Chu-Carroll did not offer a correction of pre-biotic possibilities, because none was needed. He did include his own suspicion, but that was irrelevent to the point.

Bradford(2): Why aren't the two events completely independent?

I don't know if they are independent or are not, nor do Berlinski or Chu-Carroll. You have to prove independence before you multiply probabilities, or the calculation is meaningless.

Berlinski's argument is based on the maths. If the maths is wrong, the argument fails.

Wrong. The only failing would be the math itself. The argument that OOL is bogus is on firm ground. Have you read the entire essay?

I understand that there is an increased likelihood of a second demon on Mars if we find the first one.

Pixie: Excellent. Now can see how why this is wrong?

Have you changed your mind? You indicated previously that "if we find one, the chances of finding another will be much higher."

And based on this what do you think of the chances of finding a demon on Mars?

We have no reasonable way of assessing the probability. But we can still say that if we find one, the chances of finding another will be much higher.

Why are you ignoring this prior comment I made?
"I never claimed to be impressed with his odds (although the essay on the whole is good)"

Because it is vacuous. If you are prepared to state that his calcuation of the odds is not reasonable, then we could move on in agreement. If you had said that you were not impressed with his calculation, I might have queried it, asking you to say one way or the other. But all you are saying here is that you never claimed to be impressed. So for all I know you might have been impressed with the calculation, and merely not said so.

It is not the specific odds I concur with rather the indication that the arsing of a self-replicator is implausible as explained in the ignored part of Berlinski's essay.

You started the thread focusing on a specific part of Berlinski's argument. Please do not complain if we subsequently focus on that specific part of Berlinski's argument!

Why do you omit key phrases like "hopelessly vague" which I used to describe the "justification." I'll spell it out for you this time. The "justification" is fatally flawed.

So far all we have is your assertion that this is the case. As Chu-Carroll's argument revolves around the rejection of p(template|self-replicator) = p(template), and you have been unwilling to say whether you agree with that or not, I am going to reject your assertion.

Berlinski is correct in his argument and superfluous with his math. That's a scientific assessment not an expression of faith.

Berlinski's argument is based on the maths. If the maths is wrong, the argument fails. That is why he put the maths in. Hmm, perhaps you think he put the maths in to confuse people? Or to make it seem more technical? Or to scare people away so they do not actually read the rest of it?

I understand that there is an increased likelihood of a second demon on Mars if we find the first one.

Excellent. Now can see how why this is wrong?

p(two demons on Mars) = p(demon on Mars) x p(demon on Mars)

I am guessing no, but hopefully you will prove me wrong on this one.