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.
Mung is even starting to sound like Frankie:
keiths,
Life is good! And that bothers you.
Allan,
Your position can’t explain life. Obvioulsy.
Signature-worthy.
Thank you for demonstrating that I was correct about your failure to understand the word “given”. This thread really is the gift that keeps on giving.
🙂
Sure I do. Magical Pixies. The same way everything else works.
You all just can’t stand it that Frankie is right, so you’ll do anything to change the subject.
Mung,
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
LOL! Mung must think wavelength = frequency too. 😀
Wow, I bungled the tex in the previous post and can’t get the edit function to work, which I fear has mangled my post. Here’s another attempt, with correct markup this time! Sorry for the double post.
This assertion (
) has some interesting consequences. This quantity is the unconditional probability of 
, which also has the interpretation of being the average probability of 
, where the average is taken over all hypotheses, 
:
Since the average probability of
is 1, the probability of 
given any particular hypothesis, 
, must also be 1. In other words, the flagellum is inevitable under naturalistic evolutionary processes.
Another interesting consequences is that, since
and 
,
This means that, according to Bayesian logic, our posterior belief about
is the same as our prior belief about 
: the flagellum contains no information about the hypothesis in question (naturalistic evolutionary processes).
Note: I am not saying any of these consequences are true, because obviously
.
mrmay, I can see your comments (nice) in the moderation queue. Hopefully an Admin frees them soon!
For some definitions of wavelength.
An interesting side-note relates to Behe’s arguments on the ‘Edge of Evolution’. He argues that if two ‘necessary mutations’ in Plasmodium falciparum each has a 1 in 10^20 chance of occurring, the double has a probability of 10^40. That’s true if and only if they must both occur in the same cell in the same generation. That is only met by full lethality for both single mutants. In all other scenarios, these are dependent probabilities. There is P(A|B) and P(B|A). A and B alone can both increase due to drift (even if deleterious) and the second mutation has a dependent probability given the first. Plus, chances are raised substantially in this sexual organism by crossover between the two subpopulations.
Presumably peddlers of the dependent probability notion are happy to address the following: P(F|D). That is, the probability of a Flagellum given a Designer. Even if life were designed, there is no certainty the designer would wish to jet-propel disease organisms. But first things first eh?
If P(F|D) cannot be calculated it is due to the failure of Designerists to provide D 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” … oh, hang on a sec …
Allan Miller,
I’m told there *is* a positive case for design. So I imagine we’ll see the numbers shortly.
Richardthughes,
One not based on eliminating ‘chance hypotheses’ that cannot even be calculated in order to eliminate them? I’ll look forward to that.
Mung:
Don’t quote-mine yourself. The full, embarrassing quote:
‘H’ is a symbol (pay attention to the quote marks). H is a hypothesis.
You thought H was a number, which is laughably wrong.
H is not a number. T|H is not a quotient. And even if T|H were a quotient, it would not approach 0 as H approached 0.
Frankie, Mung,
What is the value of P(L|E), where
L is “Frankie and Mung go off and learn something about conditional probability”, and
E is “Frankie and Mung embarrass themselves badly on a thread about conditional probability”?
What I thought was that to obtain a number between 0 and 1, as in a probability, one needed to assign numerical values and perform a division.
It’s not my fault you cannot follow a simple line of logical thinking.
It’s an ignorant question. We’re not dealing with values (i.e., numbers).
Mung,
No, what you thought was that T and H were numbers and that T|H was a quotient.
Sure we are. P(T|H) is a probability, and probabilities are numbers. The fact that P(T|H) is a number does not mean that T and H are numbers or that T|H is a quotient.
This isn’t that difficult, Mung. Why not make an effort to learn?
Try this:
Khan Academy: Dependent Probability
Stick to snark and posting quotes without comment Mung. Less can go wrong that way.
I say we should celebrate if Frankie got something right. After all, it might encourage him!
Welcome to TSZ, mrmay! I think you have managed excellently with
in a first comment. And a lucid explanation of stuff for the mathematically challenged is always welcome.
ETA forgot the backslash! 🙂
Mung is not unique in that regard, looking upthread.
I don’t disagree. I’m no saint either. But I think it’s fair to say the balance is tipped too far over to one side with some people.
I moved one comment to Guano due to violating the rule about assuming good faith. Those discussions belong in Noyau or Moderation Issues.
What is the probability keiths will ever support evolutionism and actually make an argument?
How is your removing all of the elements from an infinite set coming? That is why no one should listen to you when it comes to math, keiths.
Again your failure to make a case means tat you don’t have one and all you can do is spew soundbites.
LoL! You don’t need any calculations to eliminate necessity and chance. All that is needed is experience with cause and effect relationships coupled with the fact that no one knows how to test stochastic processes producing something like a bacterial flagellum. The specification for the BF is given by its function.
So with necessity and chance eliminated plus the presence of a specification gives us the design inference.
Al of my detractors are wrong. Do so many wrongs make a right? 😛
What is the specification in this case?
Will you be letting the wider world know of your victories? Perhaps you should publish a paper on JoeMath?
When did you do that? When was it ruled out, can you show your working?
Frankie,
If the probability can’t even be calculated, how in hell can it be eliminated?
Or rather: why make an OP specifically about P(T|H) and then completely ignore it?
What’s P(F|D)? Based on your experience of cause and effect re: designers and bacterial motors?
If you can’t even calculate the probability then it deserves to be eliminated. That proves it doesn’t even deserve a seat at the probability discussion which is the last table to make your case.
You people are ignoring it, Allan. The OP made the case that you don’t even have testable hypotheses. And that means your claims can’t be tested.
Necessity and chance are eliminated by the sheer fact that no one can muster testable hypotheses for them nor do they know how to test the claims that rely on them.
But I understand why you would want to blame ID for your failures.
Allan Miller,
Actually the OP was about the fact that your position cannot muster testable hypotheses, which makes it unscientific.
And yet, despite that, an overwhelming majority of scientists (who you’d think would know unscientific from scientific) are on Allan’s side and not yours?
Ever stop to think and wonder why that is? Perhaps you are mistaken about something, perhaps?
And therefore ID is also ruled out, as that no one can muster testable hypotheses for ID nor does anyone know how to test the claims that rely on them.
Frankie,
So we can eliminate P(F|D), then. The probability that a designer designed the flagellum. You move the goalposts and still hoof the ball into the back of your own net!
Why can we eliminate P(F|D) given the evidence that it = 1? Make your case as opposed to proclaiming it so.
You just made that case yourself! Can you calculate the probability of the Intelligent Designer creating the flagellum? If not then Frankie knows what to do!
And so it is.
Frankie,
Darwin’s theory did not use the scientific method as a standard. He used inference to the best explanation, which is the method of choosing among competing hypothesis. The competing hypothesis he argued against was creationism. He was criticized for using the inference standard but eventually the majority accepted this. Intelligent design is viable given the inference standard so ironically the founder or enabler of intelligent design was Charles Darwin. So your claim above is correct as the science was never set up to be testable.
Frankie,
As far as being unscientific, that depends on how we define science. Is the inference standard part of science?
This is often mentioned at UD.
And so on. Odd how they don’t accept it when it does not go their way then.
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?
colewd,
There are clear differences in expectation between an ID and an evolved (common descent with mutation/recombination) biosphere. Those are testable distinctions. They have been tested as thoroughly as is reasonable to expect at this remove (and, indeed, Darwin spent an entire book accumulating his evidence).
Guess which theory is the better supported by the evidence to date?
Allan Miller,
This is exactly what is wrong with the inference standard. The answer to this question is just opinion. Darwin was missing biochemical evidence which recently has made his theory highly unlikely based on the genome being made up of nucleotide sequences.