CrackedSkull
Member
No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance. So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1.
Meanwhile, evolution is a fact. Simple as that. The only thing that changes in the theory over time is that we gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and many minutia.
Creationism is pseudoscience, which endeavors to prove a postulate in support of the Judeao /Christian myth of species creation, and unlike true science does not endeavor to seek new understanding of the world and universe.
You're are correct I was certainly wrong in comparing the chances of winning the lottery by random chance vs the odds of random chance producing the precision in the cell which the odds would make it impossible.
This is, as expected, boilerplate creationist nonsense. This is precisely the argument that Meyer stole from Behe. In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof.
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.
Proof of design is only required in religious circles where their science is a 1600 year old book of sheep herder tales.