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.
“Poof” is a perfectly cromulent mechanism.
It’s like Frankie and Mung are neighbours who have not been invited to the party and who desire nothing more to ruin it for everyone else, if they can’t go.
Wow! Still no case against what I said. P(H|T), in context would be the probability of a hypothesis, H, given a materialistic pathway X.
http://statistics.about.com/od/ProbHelpandTutorials/a/What-Is-Conditional-Probability.htm
The Antikythera mechanism, Non Madol, the massive cave system in Turkey, Pumapunku – but that misses the point. We don’t have to know the mechanism used to determine intelligent design exists and then try to figure out the how. The how always comes after. And that proves that ID is not a scientific dead-end as it opens up those other questions.
But anyway your refusal to engage in the topic betrays your desperation.
How is what I am saying any different from what is posted here:
http://statistics.about.com/od/ProbHelpandTutorials/a/What-Is-Conditional-Probability.htm
Or are you not referring to my contributions?
Very good point.
Now would be a good time to retract your statement that “p(H|T) is irrelevant”…
Your description of what p(H|T) is is a little off, btw.
DNA_Jock,
I don’t see any reason to retract my statement as my reference supports it.I retract my claim that P(H|T) is irrelevant. But my description is a little off to the anal retentive who choose to obfuscate and not respond to the point at hand.
To recap- P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H. The | stands for given. P(H|T) would be the probability of event H given event T
If P(H|T) = 0 then it proves the claim to be untestable.
So I have to retract what I said above as I see the relevance. P(T|H) cannot be calculated because P(H|T) = 0. And evolutionism is not science
Frankie,
To clarify my previous comment, Bayes Theorem is one way of expressing the relationship between the conditional probabilities P(T|H) and P(H|T).
Yes, and that is my fault for thinking they were trying to trick me. They made a big deal out of it even though it was really covered in the OP.
Looks like I ran into a bunch of people who think they are experts on the experts.
Sorry, I stand corrected.
Yup, humans have no history or mechanism for producing intermeshing gears.
Yup, humans had no means of working stone to produce structures.
Yup, humans have never dug caves before.
Again with the mason work.
And what point is that? That we are good at identifying artifacts built by an organism for which we have extensive knowledge of what tools and capabilities it has? In that case, we agree.
You have yet to provide a single example of a known designed artifact for which we did not have intimate knowledge of the capabilities and tools available to the designer.
Agreed, but in absence of this, we must know the capabilities and tools available to the designer.
So, you are admitting that after more than a decade ID has failed to identify a single example of design in any life form. If they had, the research into the mechanisms used (or available) to the designer would have been progressing at a rapid pace.
Well, that’s not really a “recap”, Frankie, but I am glad you got there eventually.
Let’s revisit your reference: Dembski p18
and
Thus, per Dembski, p(T|H) is the probability of observing the flagellar structure, given the “relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms”.
And THEREFORE p(H|T) is the probability that the Darwinian hypothesis is true, given the observation of the flagellar structure. It’s not merely “relevant”, it’s the whole frigging ball of wax.
Now what everyone reading this thread knows, except for you (and perhaps Mung; Sal knows), is that p(H|T) and p(T|H) can be interconverted via Bayes theorem. Hence my original question to you, and the general giggling at your flailing responses.
But Dembski knows that, to get from p(T|H), which he thinks he might be able to measure, somehow, although no-one has yet managed it, to p(H|T), which is what he really needs for his “therefore design” argument, he has to assume his conclusion. So, instead of applying Bayes theorem, he uses p(T|H) as a poor man’s substitute for p(H|T). As you so eloquently pointed out
How true.
So Dembski applies Fisherian testing, which says if p(T|H) is sufficiently small, we reject H. Apart from being fundamentally invalid, this leads to a whole new set of problems for Dembski, not least of which is that H has to be “all relevant chance hypotheses, taking into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms”.
Which makes the calculation of p(T|H)…errr..how should I put it…problematic
But at least you learnt something today. Positively a red-letter day, Frankie.
Yes, Acartia, your desperate attempt to change the subject, along with your ignorance of investigation, are duly noted.
DNA_Jock,
LoL! That was a recap, DNA. You just had some issue that you couldn’t put it together. And I have already addressed everything you have said. All you are doing is confirming that there isn’t any way to test the claims of evolutionism, ie the alleged theory of evolution. And yes tat is problematic for you and yours
Hmm. Projection.
I am an expert on people like that. 😎
What is a pert?
DNA_Jock:
It’s unlikely that Mung knows it, unless he learned it recently. Mung, after all, is the person who wrote this:
Mung roulette pays out occasionally, too. Keep spinning that wheel, folks!
keiths is saying we have to have an H = 0 before we can infer design. Which is just ignorant.
H is not a number, Mung. And T|H is not a quotient.
If H doesn’t exist we can call it 0, for a placeholder. And if you don’t have a H then the probability of T given nothing is 0. Tx0=0 😎
Frankie:
Too funny.
Frankie and Mung roulette are paying out big today. This is how you get hooked on gambling.
Psst, Frankie — the probability of T given nothing is just the unconditional probability P(T).
If the question is “what is the probability that the evolution would produce the bacterial flagellum?”, the answer is “vanishingly small”.
This is a powerful argument against the hypothesis that evolutionary processes made the evolution of the bacterial flagellum inevitable.
Has anyone actually suggested that?
FFS just stop posting and learn.
No.
Then requiring that it be zero in order to infer design is just ignorant. Glad you agree with me.
I learn here. But sifting through all the lies and BS is a chore. And if we’re honest, you and others like you are not here to teach, else you would be teaching instead of scoffing.
And for me personally, asking questions is a huge part of how I learn. So asking me to “stop posting and learn” is counter-productive.
That is incorrect. The probability of ATP synthase is 1 as it exists. So what you are saying doesn’t make any sense at all.
The probability that stochastic process can produce a bacterial flagellum is the same as stochastic processes producing Stonehenge, exactly 0.
However the point is no one knows how to test the claim that stochastic processes can produce a bacterial flagellum making the claim vacuous and unscientific.
No Frankie, keiths is correct. Perhaps the word “given” is giving you trouble. It does not mean “given the following tools”, rather it means “if we assume that the following is true”, so p(event|nothing) = p(event)
Always.
Maybe I was wrong about the red-letter day.
🙁
The thread title is misleading. It should be “help Frankie understand basic probability”.
Frankie,
So stupid. Assume your conclusion, and ignorance of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell%27s_rule
(who also give our site it’s catchy strap-line).
LoL! @ Richie- Make your case. I know that I am not assuming my conclusion so good luck with that. And it is true that you have no way to test the claim that stochastic processes can produce/ produced ATP synthase
No Frankie, keiths is correct. Perhaps the word “given” is giving you trouble. It does not mean “given the following tools”, rather it means “if we assume that the following is true”, so p(event|nothing) = p(event)
Always.
Maybe I was wrong about the red-letter day.
LoL! And another one who cannot make a case. The conditional probability remains, so keiths is wrong. The probability of T given nothing would be 0, not the probability of T, which exists and must be explained by something.
Seeing that you were so wrong yesterday and then day before, I see no reason to believe you today
Good. Then you’ll be able to show your math. If you don’t, you’ve assumed your conclusion.
LoL! Still afraid to make your case, eh? What math is needed to show that your position doesn’t have a testable hypothesis for the evolution of any bacterial flagellum? What math is required to show it is composed of many parts all configured properly? We can count then parts and observe the function.
Look instead of flailing away at me and ID perhaps you should focus on all of the many shortcomings of your position. But we know that you won’t because you don’t even know where to start.
Frankie,
You’ve made a claim, failed to support it and are now trying to change the subject. Thanks for showing once again that ID is simply and anti-evolutionary conjecture, devoid of content of its own.
LoL! I made the claim that I am assuming my conclusion? Really?
Richie has me confused with evolutionists who all assume everything biological evolved via stochastic processes. Unfortunately they cannot test the bulk of the claims, only the trivial like disease and deformities.
My claim above is supported by the facts, namely the evolution of any bacterial flagellum via stochastic processes eludes us. And its form and function strongly resemble a feat of engineering. Given the findings of Durrett and Schmidt, building something of that intricacy and complexity is impossible via stochastic processes (unless you can show that any ole mutations can do it).
And a healthy BMI eludes you, but that doesn’t make it impossible (P=0).
“resemble engineering”. Resemble. So they resemble human endeavors. Shame there were none around then.
1- BMI alone is not an indicator of health. Only the ignorant use it as such.
2- Resembles is good enough given necessity and chance have been eliminated
3- Again, if it couldn’t have been humans then we infer it was some other intentional agency. What we don’t do is regress and say OK it musta been mother nature all along.
4- All this would be moot if you could only support the claims of your position. That you have to flail away at me and ID not only exposes your desperation but also the vacuous nature of your position.
So, for the kids, I thank you.
1. Really? What is the correlation of BMI and health?
2. Proof required
3. No we don’t. You’re just making things up based on your religious proclivities.
4. And again ID is simply anti-evolution.
What about processes that combine chance and necessity? You IDiots sure haven’t eliminated them.
ID is anti evolution given the lack of evidence for evolution.
It looks like Frankie wins this round.
If you turn the hill into a hole it’s simple to understand how the elephant got to the bottom. The Anti-Frankie crowd should stop digging.
Mung, to Rumraket:
Mung,
We had that conversation 3 1/2 years ago, yet you still have no idea what P(T|H) means.
Let’s take a look at the kind of questions you were asking.
Mung, to Jerad:
Mung, to keiths:
I think I see the problem with your questions.
Are you saying the keiths Weasel program finds the target phrase by necessity? And yet people claim it isn’t guided/directed. LoL!
Creationists are so cute when they try to support each other’s flailing. 😀
keiths, for whatever reason, needs to pretend that I did not say the following:
“Yes, H is not a number, it’s a symbol.”
All this time and Mung still doesn’t get how evolution works.