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.
I was thinking of the Phylos technology in particular.
DNA_Jock,
Thanks. Interesting addition to the discussion.
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.
Frankie,
1. what is a major change
2. How long should a major change take in evolutionary timescales?
You don’t know how drift/ NS operates. And for all we know both are impotent.
And what do you have, seeing that you don’t have any testable hypotheses nor any methodology?
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.
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.
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.
Frankie,
Keep pushing the goalposts chubs!
“eliminated” using Frequentist statistics…
LOL
Wrong again- eliminated using science and the fact that evolutionists cannot support the claims of their position.
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.
Timeline is an entailment of the mechanism involved. Gradualism vs. Saltationism, for example. You don’t understand science, do you?
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
Frankie,
And another attack on evolution. Your tenth today, maybe? You have no positive case.
http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/bioph354/Evol_F1.html
But I see you’ve moved from bodyplans to ATP synthase. Gish Galluping like a good creationist.
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
Frankie,
It’s a far more compelling narrative than the one you’ve offered for how ID did it. because you have none.
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
They’re part of science. And as ID writes lots of books but does no research, I think you’d like narratives.
Richie, your ignorance of ID and science are well known. And that means everything that you say about them is nonsense.
Well, at least a understand the basics, like conditional probability, so I’m waaaaay ahead of you.
Your posts say otherwise. Your posts betray your ignorance. As if you understand conditional probabilities. You can’t even grasp P(H|T)
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.
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.
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.
“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.
But Frankie, that sounds just like the Intelligent Design explanation!
OK, so Richie cannot make a case, how usual, and in typical fashion avoids making a claim.
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.
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.
heh
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.