Unknown: What do we mean by “chance”? That it has a very small a priori probability… The evidence is given: the two sequences are similar. We can also assume that the evolution theory has a bigger probability a priori, than the chance to get that sequence. These insights were all included in the post, I think. So applying Bayes’ theorem we get the fact that the evolution version has much bigger a posteriori probability, so we don’t have to show that separately.
There are a lot of events which have a priori probabilities in that order of magnitude… But we also should have strong evidences to shift that to a plausible level. But a lot of people think: “there was only a very little chance for this to happen, but it happened ⇒ things with very little chances do happen sometimes.”
Unknown: What do we mean by “chance”? That it has a very small a priori probability… The evidence is given: the two sequences are similar. We can also assume that the evolution theory has a bigger probability a priori, than the chance to get that sequence. These insights were all included in the post, I think. So applying Bayes’ theorem we get the fact that the evolution version has much bigger a posteriori probability, so we don’t have to show that separately.
There are a lot of events which have a priori probabilities in that order of magnitude… But we also should have strong evidences to shift that to a plausible level. But a lot of people think: “there was only a very little chance for this to happen, but it happened ⇒ things with very little chances do happen sometimes.”