The Real EleP(T|H)ant in the Room

TSZ has made much ado about P(T|H), a conditional probability based on a materialistic hypothesis. They don’t seem to realize that H pertains to their position and that H cannot be had means their position is untestable. The only reason the conditional probability exists in the first place is due to the fact that the claims of evolutionists cannot be directly tested in a lab. If their claims could be directly tested then there wouldn’t be any need for a conditional probability.

If P(T|H) cannot be calculated it is due to the failure of evolutionists to provide H and their failure to find experimental evidence to support their claims.

I know what the complaints are going to be- “It is Dembski’s metric”- but yet it is in relation to your position and it wouldn’t exist if you actually had something that could be scientifically tested.

 

 

286 thoughts on “The Real EleP(T|H)ant in the Room

  1. Patrick,

    Neither Lenski’s citrate bug nor nylonase is a major change. And you can’t even say if the changes were happenstance You will cling to anything if you think it supports your position.

  2. Allan Miller:
    Allan Miller,

    Except, of course, for any form of ID that operates in a manner that is indistinguishable from the processes of drift/selection of random variation. How would you go about testing indistinguishable differences?

    You don’t know how drift/ NS operates. And for all we know both are impotent.

  3. Patrick: That sounds like nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

    And what do you have, seeing that you don’t have any testable hypotheses nor any methodology?

  4. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    How ridiculous. You proclaim it to be 1 and then insist I merely ‘proclaim’ it isn’t!

    Note that P(F|D) is a dependent probability. There is a probability P(D) there is a designer, and there is the dependent probability that IF there is a designer it designed the flagellum. Why is the resultant of those two components 1? Are designers compelled to design every last detail?

    And, if you insist that testable hypotheses must be decided ‘in the lab’, how are you going to back that up?

    LoL! I didn’t proclaim it, Allan. What I said is based on the evidence and the methodology for investigating a possible design inference- necessity and chance were eliminated and a specification is at hand.

  5. Major change would be a change in body plan. And evos have no idea if such a thing is possible let alone give a timeline for it.

    Your position has nothing, Richie. That is the point of the OP

  6. Frankie:
    Major change would be a change in body plan. And evos have no idea if such a thing is possible let alone give a timeline for it.

    Your position has nothing, Richie. That is the point of the OP

    Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. Fossil records and dating can help us understand such timelines, as well as phylogenetics etc. It seems ID is the thing that has nothing. No positive case so far.

  7. Fossils do not say when the organism first arrived. And they do not speak of a mechanism. Phylogenetics doesn’t speak of a mechanism. You are obviously just bluffing.

  8. OK so fossils cannot give a timeline for the organisms’ arrival and neither can phylogenetics. And seeing that the debate has always been about mechanisms it is clear that I did not move nor try to move any goalposts.

  9. Timeline is an entailment of the mechanism involved. Gradualism vs. Saltationism, for example. You don’t understand science, do you?

  10. Yes, Richie, we already know that you can’t actually make your case. If the timeline is an entailment of the mechanism then why can’t evolutionary biologists tell us how long it takes to evolve ATP synthase via those mechanisms? Most likely because those mechanisms are incapable

  11. LoL! I am not attacking evolution and your equivocation is duly noted. Your link doesn’t say anything about how natural selection, drift or neutral construction didit, cupcake.

    Pathetic

  12. LoL! Narratives aren’t science, cupcake. And as far as it goes they might as well be talking about evolution by design. But then again you don’t seem to be able to grasp that concept

  13. Frankie: Narratives aren’t science, cupcake

    They’re part of science. And as ID writes lots of books but does no research, I think you’d like narratives.

  14. Richie, your ignorance of ID and science are well known. And that means everything that you say about them is nonsense.

  15. Well, at least a understand the basics, like conditional probability, so I’m waaaaay ahead of you.

  16. Your posts say otherwise. Your posts betray your ignorance. As if you understand conditional probabilities. You can’t even grasp P(H|T)

  17. The funniest part is that Richie’s own reference says that no one knows how ATP synthase evolved. They are just sure that it did. Too bad they cannot find a simpler structure that can manufacture ATP. And without that their argument fails.

  18. Frankie:
    Your posts say otherwise. Your posts betray your ignorance. As if you understand conditional probabilities. You can’t even grasp P(H|T)

    No, I got it. You however have said,

    “Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis”

    DERP.

    Back to school for you, I think.

  19. What I said about it is correct. You are just confused by the wording, as usual.

    You cannot say what it is that runs contrary to what I have posted.

  20. Richardthughes:
    “Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis”

    I have to agree with Richard here that Frankie is wrong. P(H|T) is the probably that T is hypothetical.

  21. Frankie: no one knows how ATP synthase evolved. They are just sure that it did.

    But Frankie, that sounds just like the Intelligent Design explanation!

  22. Well I’m late to the party again, but P[T|H] is not a quantity that any sane biologist would think possible to calculate, and no one on the science side of the fence is proposing that it can be. It is no failure for science, it’s a Creationist straw man.

  23. Tomato Addict:
    Well I’m late to the party again, but P[T|H] is not a quantity that any sane biologist would think possible to calculate, and no one on the science side of the fence is proposing that it can be. It is no failure for science, it’s a Creationist straw man.

    But without P(T|H) your side has absolutely nothing. That means it is outside of science as it cannot be tested.

  24. Frankie: But without P(T|H) your side has absolutely nothing. That means it is outside of science as it cannot be tested.

    Without Dembski’s p(T|H), science has mountains of data, and the ability to analyze those data (the observed hierarchy of nucleotide sequences comes to mind…) to determine the effect on the relative likelihoods of competing hypotheses.
    Without Dembski’s p(T|H), ID has, as you put it, absolutely nothing. It is truly outside of science as it cannot be tested.
    So glad that you see this.

  25. DNA_Jock: Without Dembski’s p(T|H), science has mountains of data, and the ability to analyze those data (the observed hierarchy of nucleotide sequences comes to mind…) to determine the effect on the relative likelihoods of competing hypotheses.
    Without Dembski’s p(T|H), ID has, as you put it, absolutely nothing. It is truly outside of science as it cannot be tested.
    So glad that you see this.

    LoL! Your position doesn’t have any science. Your position makes untestable claims. ID doesn’t need P(T|H) as ID has the cause and effect relationships to lean on. ID also makes testable claims.

Leave a Reply