Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Koonin on transition from the RNA world

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    There are also some false premises in your quoted text. Such as:

    ID does not claim that design is required for things with an extremely low probability that can be produced by random chance. A sequence of 1,000 randomly selected nucleotides will have a fantastically low probability of being generated but does not require an intelligent designer. For ID to appeal to a designer, there also has to be specification, defined in this case as having some functional aspect to support life. It has to do something The claim is that there are vanishingly few functional sequences out of all the possible sequences.

    ID also does not require that a RNA replication/translation system (in Koonin's example in the OP) arise instantly. It's obvious though, that the sequence must be functional for any hope of selection to occur.



    Since Koonin is estimating the probability of a hypothetical situation, I don't think it's a matter of being true or not.

    It's a question is whether or not his math is correct according to his estimation. And whether or not his estimation is reasonable.


    I look forward to your explanation of the natural laws that account for specific RNA/DNA sequences.
    Not a coherent response, which is worse than your first.

    Let's talk about your education in the science and statistics involved and scientific experience to back up your objections. A good reference from a peer reviewed statistics publication to support your line of reasoning

    There are thousands of research articles on these subjects, and I have threads in the past that address, take a look. There are also many available on the internet, but I am affraid your lack of education and ID agenda is a significant barrier for you to remotely understand.

    My advice; Do not make foolish unscientific statements, and back peddle to explain them. How about some good references from statistics journals to back up your assertions.

    Still waiting . . .

    Reread or get a decent education this is a superficial insult to the authors of the article. The comparison concerned the use of probability in cause and effect event outcomes.

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Koonin is viewing the event of construction of an n-mer before the fact, thus his probability calculations are valid.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      I thought I would emphasis the problem with your view from an academic statistics perspective.

      This is a fact of statistics and probability it does not make any difference whether you calculate the probability before or after cause and effect event outcomes.

      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

        I thought I would emphasis the problem with your view from an academic statistics perspective.

        This is a fact of statistics and probability it does not make any difference whether you calculate the probability before or after cause and effect event outcomes.
        It does make a difference whether the timeframe you are considering is before or after an event. After the fact, the probability is 100%, before the fact, the probability can be less. This is basic probability.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          It does make a difference whether the timeframe you are considering is before or after an event. After the fact, the probability is 100%, before the fact, the probability can be less. This is basic probability.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          Just saying the outcome is 100% after the fact does not determine the probability. That is foolishness like saying on July 5th that the sky was Carolina blue at noon on a clear day on the 4th of July.

          Nobody of credible science nor statistics will propose the probability of past events as 100%, nor will any Credible scientist nor statistician propose to determine the probability the way Behe and the ID advocates propose.

          You need to document where competent scientists determine the probability of past events as 100 percent.

          Still waiting. . .
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            You need to document where competent scientists determine the probability of past events as 100 percent.
            P(A|A) = P(A and A) / P(A) = P(A) / P(A) = 1. This uses the well-known formula P(A|B) = P(A and B) / P(B), where A=B.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            Last edited by lee_merrill; 10-16-2020, 05:04 PM.
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              P(A|A) = P(A and A) / P(A) = P(A) / P(A) = 1. This uses the well-known formula P(A|B) = P(A and B) / P(B), where A=B.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              The difference between before, after, conditional or partial conditional probabilities as far as calculation of probabilities is the application of probabilities to different cases . None assume the probability as 100%, nor do the apply to the use of probability as Behe, Konnin and other ID believers.

              The challenge to you remains as citing a source that uses probability after the fact applying to same conditions Behe and Koonin does. and' of course. no one claims 100%.

              A stickler of a problem as cited is the all-at-once for long chains of cause and effect outcomes as described in the reference I cited this is unethical dishonest use of probability. You have failed to respond to this problem.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-16-2020, 07:22 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                The challenge to you remains as citing a source that uses probability after the fact applying to same conditions Behe and Koonin does. and' of course. no one claims 100%.
                The probability of an event, given that the event has occurred, is indeed 100%. I showed this to you mathematically, and this is the problem with the snowflakes example, they are viewing the event of a particular snowflake, after the event has occurred.

                A stickler of a problem as cited is the all-at-once for long chains of cause and effect outcomes as described in the reference I cited this is unethical dishonest use of probability. You have failed to respond to this problem.
                Well, for independent events, the timing of those events is irrelevant, if that's what you are referring to.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  The probability of an event, given that the event has occurred, is indeed 100%. I showed this to you mathematically, and this is the problem with the snowflakes example, they are viewing the event of a particular snowflake, after the event has occurred.
                  The reference on snow flakes is nonsense, and that has been already discussed. When a crystal bond is formed on a snow flake there are only certain angles or options as to how the bond will occur. The probability only involves which bond possible bond will take place. The probability is the same whether before or after the crystal bond has formed. The estimate of probability is based on the nature of the event and not when it occurred. Your reference discussed many different probabilities depending on the circumstance and none were 100%.


                  Well, for independent events, the timing of those events is irrelevant, if that's what you are referring to.
                  No it is not as referred to in the peer reviewed competent reference. It is not the timing of individual events that is remotely the case. It is the problem of determining the probability of an all-in-one sequence of the bogus probability for one probability for a long chain of events or the whole chain of events since the beginning of our universe. This is documented as an unethical dishonest way to use probability to justify an ID agenda.

                  Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+definition&rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS917US917&oq=probability+&aqs=chrome.6.69i57j0i433i457j0i433l5j0.9750j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


                  Probability -
                  MATHEMATICS
                  the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
                  "the area under the curve represents probability"

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-17-2020, 03:02 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    The probability is the same whether before or after the crystal bond has formed.
                    That's not true, the probability after the fact is 100%, as I showed mathematically.

                    It is the problem of determining the probability of an all-in-one sequence of the bogus probability for one probability for a long chain of events or the whole chain of events since the beginning of our universe.
                    Well, I ask again, what specifically is wrong in Koonin's calculation? If you cannot tell me, then these statements such as "it's bogus" are an indication that you have no good answer.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      That's not true, the probability after the fact is 100%, as I showed mathematically.
                      No you did not your math is bogus, and I have described specifically why.


                      Well, I ask again, what specifically is wrong in Koonin's calculation? If you cannot tell me, then these statements such as "it's bogus" are an indication that you have no good answer.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      I see you failed to respond to what I posted. I already answered this many times and you have failed to respond.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon
                      We have been here before with ID advocates cutting and pasting an unethical dishonest probability model:

                      The reason why I said, 'This nothing new' misusing statistics and probability by ID and other Creationists is the same misuse is used concerning evolution. Note Bold, and the rest of the article is worth the read. Failure to consider that nature acts by a series of cause and effect outcomes constrained by Laws of Nature is the primary unethical misuse of statistics and probability,
                      As previously posted https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...the-same-again

                      Source: https://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/



                      Both traditional creationists and ID scholars have invoked probability theory in criticisms of evolution. One typical argument goes like this: the human alpha globin molecule, which plays a key oxygen transfer function, is a protein chain based on a sequence of 141 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems, so the number of potential chains of length 141 is 20^(141), which is roughly 10^(183). This figure is so enormous, so these writers argue, that even after billions of years of random molecular trials, no alpha globin protein molecule would ever appear [Foster, pg. 79-83; Hoyle, pg. 1-20; Lennox, pg. 163-173].

                      But the above argument fails to note that most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function. When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183), and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey].

                      More importantly, this and almost all similar probability-based arguments against evolution suffer from the fallacy of presuming that biological structures such as alpha globin arise by a single all-or-nothing random trial. Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. Probability calculations such as the above, which do not take into account the process by which the structure came to be, are not meaningful and can easily mislead [Musgrave].

                      Along this line, consider snowflakes. Bentley and Humphrey’s book Snow Crystals [Bentley] includes over 2000 high-resolution black-and-white photos of real snowflakes, each with intricate yet highly regular patterns (a few of the Bentley-Humphrey photos are posted at Online article). The chances that one particular structure, with striking near-perfect 6-way symmetry, can form “at random” can be calculated as roughly one part in 10^(2500). Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.

                      ID scholar William Dembski invokes probability and information theory (the mathematical theory of information content in data) in arguments against Darwinism. But knowledgeable scholars who have examined Dembski’s works are not persuaded and have been sharply critical. Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit (a colleague of the present bloggers) and biologist Wesley Elsberry conclude that Dembski’s notion of “complex specified information” is incoherent and unworkable [Shallit]. Biologist Gert Korthof, in a review of Dembski’s book Intelligent Design, concludes that Dembski’s analysis cannot be meaningfully applied to DNA [Korthof]. Mathematician Richard Wein, in a review of Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, characterizes it as “pseudoscientific rhetoric” [Wein].

                      © Copyright Original Source





                      The reference on snow flakes is nonsense, and that has been already discussed. When a crystal bond is formed on a snow flake there are only certain angles or options as to how the bond will occur. The probability only involves which bond possible bond will take place. The probability is the same whether before or after the crystal bond has formed. The estimate of probability is based on the nature of the event and not when it occurred. Your reference discussed many different probabilities depending on the circumstance and none were 100%.


                      Well, for independent events, the timing of those events is irrelevant, if that's what you are referring to.
                      No it is not as referred to in the peer reviewed competent reference. It is not the timing of individual events that is remotely the case. It is the problem of determining the probability of an all-in-one sequence of the bogus probability for one probability for a long chain of events or the whole chain of events since the beginning of our universe. This is documented as an unethical dishonest way to use probability to justify an ID agenda.

                      What you claim does not even fit the math definition of and how to calculate simple probability.

                      Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+definition&rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS91 7US917&oq=probability+&aqs=chrome.6.69i57j0i433i45 7j0i433l5j0.9750j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



                      Probability -
                      MATHEMATICS
                      the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
                      "the area under the curve represents probability"

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-17-2020, 05:07 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        No you did not your math is bogus, and I have described specifically why.
                        No, you did not, but what is P(A|A), if not 1?

                        I see you failed to respond to what I posted. I already answered this many times and you have failed to respond.
                        I have responded to your posts, and your response is to say "that's bogus"! But that is not a refutation of my points.

                        Source: https://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/



                        Both traditional creationists and ID scholars have invoked probability theory in criticisms of evolution. One typical argument goes like this: the human alpha globin molecule, which plays a key oxygen transfer function, is a protein chain based on a sequence of 141 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems, so the number of potential chains of length 141 is 20^(141), which is roughly 10^(183). This figure is so enormous, so these writers argue, that even after billions of years of random molecular trials, no alpha globin protein molecule would ever appear [Foster, pg. 79-83; Hoyle, pg. 1-20; Lennox, pg. 163-173].

                        But the above argument fails to note that most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function. When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183), and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey].

                        More importantly, this and almost all similar probability-based arguments against evolution suffer from the fallacy of presuming that biological structures such as alpha globin arise by a single all-or-nothing random trial. Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. Probability calculations such as the above, which do not take into account the process by which the structure came to be, are not meaningful and can easily mislead [Musgrave]

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        But Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch, and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.

                        The reference on snow flakes is nonsense, and that has been already discussed. When a crystal bond is formed on a snow flake there are only certain angles or options as to how the bond will occur. The probability only involves which bond possible bond will take place. The probability is the same whether before or after the crystal bond has formed. The estimate of probability is based on the nature of the event and not when it occurred.
                        Yet I insist that they are comparing P(A|A) to P(A), their mistake is in viewing a snowflake after it forms, and then asking what is the probability of forming that snowflake. Which is 100%, given that it is already formed.

                        What you claim does not even fit the math definition of and how to calculate simple probability.
                        P(A|A) is the probability of event A, with the realm of possible events being just the event A, which is 100%.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          No, you did not, but what is P(A|A), if not 1?


                          I have responded to your posts, and your response is to say "that's bogus"! But that is not a refutation of my points.


                          But Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch, and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.


                          Yet I insist that they are comparing P(A|A) to P(A), their mistake is in viewing a snowflake after it forms, and then asking what is the probability of forming that snowflake. Which is 100%, given that it is already formed.


                          P(A|A) is the probability of event A, with the realm of possible events being just the event A, which is 100%.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          Molecules do not come from scratch

                          I see you failed to respond to what I posted. I already answered this many times and you have failed to respond.

                          To add your reference on Conditional Probability contradicts your phony math. Your ENRON probability does not work.

                          Still waiting for you to respond . . .

                          [quote=shunyadragon]
                          We have been here before with ID advocates cutting and pasting an unethical dishonest probability model:

                          The reason why I said, 'This nothing new' misusing statistics and probability by ID and other Creationists is the same misuse is used concerning evolution. Note Bold, and the rest of the article is worth the read. Failure to consider that nature acts by a series of cause and effect outcomes constrained by Laws of Nature is the primary unethical misuse of statistics and probability, [/cite]
                          As previously posted https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...the-same-again

                          Source: https://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/




                          Both traditional creationists and ID scholars have invoked probability theory in criticisms of evolution. One typical argument goes like this: the human alpha globin molecule, which plays a key oxygen transfer function, is a protein chain based on a sequence of 141 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems, so the number of potential chains of length 141 is 20^(141), which is roughly 10^(183). This figure is so enormous, so these writers argue, that even after billions of years of random molecular trials, no alpha globin protein molecule would ever appear [Foster, pg. 79-83; Hoyle, pg. 1-20; Lennox, pg. 163-173].

                          But the above argument fails to note that most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function. When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183), and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey].

                          More importantly, this and almost all similar probability-based arguments against evolution suffer from the fallacy of presuming that biological structures such as alpha globin arise by a single all-or-nothing random trial. Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. Probability calculations such as the above, which do not take into account the process by which the structure came to be, are not meaningful and can easily mislead [Musgrave].

                          Along this line, consider snowflakes. Bentley and Humphrey’s book Snow Crystals [Bentley] includes over 2000 high-resolution black-and-white photos of real snowflakes, each with intricate yet highly regular patterns (a few of the Bentley-Humphrey photos are posted at Online article). The chances that one particular structure, with striking near-perfect 6-way symmetry, can form “at random” can be calculated as roughly one part in 10^(2500). Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.

                          ID scholar William Dembski invokes probability and information theory (the mathematical theory of information content in data) in arguments against Darwinism. But knowledgeable scholars who have examined Dembski’s works are not persuaded and have been sharply critical. Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit (a colleague of the present bloggers) and biologist Wesley Elsberry conclude that Dembski’s notion of “complex specified information” is incoherent and unworkable [Shallit]. Biologist Gert Korthof, in a review of Dembski’s book Intelligent Design, concludes that Dembski’s analysis cannot be meaningfully applied to DNA [Korthof]. Mathematician Richard Wein, in a review of Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, characterizes it as “pseudoscientific rhetoric” [Wein].

                          © Copyright Original Source




                          The reference on snow flakes is nonsense, and that has been already discussed. When a crystal bond is formed on a snow flake there are only certain angles or options as to how the bond will occur. The probability only involves which bond possible bond will take place. The probability is the same whether before or after the crystal bond has formed. The estimate of probability is based on the nature of the event and not when it occurred. Your reference discussed many different probabilities depending on the circumstance and none were 100%.


                          It is not as referred to in the peer reviewed competent reference. It is not the timing of individual events that is remotely the case. It is the problem of determining the probability of an all-in-one sequence of the bogus probability for one probability for a long chain of events or the whole chain of events since the beginning of our universe. This is documented as an unethical dishonest way to use probability to justify an ID agenda.

                          What you claim does not even fit the math definition of and how to calculate simple probability.

                          Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+definition&rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS91 7US917&oq=probability+&aqs=chrome.6.69i57j0i433i45 7j0i433l5j0.9750j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



                          Probability -
                          MATHEMATICS
                          the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
                          "the area under the curve represents probability"

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          From post #42

                          This completely false in any possible sense. There is no legitimate probability calculated in this manner before or after the fact in the manner used by Behe, Koonin and other ID advocates. Actually if the probability is anything close to a reasonable result it would not make any difference how it is applied before or after the fact. The problem remains as the source describes it.

                          Please document [with references] this 'they' you claim does it differently [concerning the specific probability method Behe and Koonin use and apply to their case].
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-17-2020, 08:45 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            No, you are the one not responding, please respond to my points!

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              No, you are the one not responding, please respond to my points!

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              For years you have failed to respond to these critical points.

                              Still waiting . . .

                              I see you failed to respond to what I posted. I already answered this many times and you have failed to respond.

                              To add your reference on Conditional Probability contradicts your phony math. Your ENRON probability does not work.

                              Still waiting for you to respond . . .

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon
                              We have been here before with ID advocates cutting and pasting an unethical dishonest probability model:

                              The reason why I said, 'This nothing new' misusing statistics and probability by ID and other Creationists is the same misuse is used concerning evolution. Note Bold, and the rest of the article is worth the read. Failure to consider that nature acts by a series of cause and effect outcomes constrained by Laws of Nature is the primary unethical misuse of statistics and probability,
                              As previously posted https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...the-same-again

                              Source: https://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/





                              Both traditional creationists and ID scholars have invoked probability theory in criticisms of evolution. One typical argument goes like this: the human alpha globin molecule, which plays a key oxygen transfer function, is a protein chain based on a sequence of 141 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems, so the number of potential chains of length 141 is 20^(141), which is roughly 10^(183). This figure is so enormous, so these writers argue, that even after billions of years of random molecular trials, no alpha globin protein molecule would ever appear [Foster, pg. 79-83; Hoyle, pg. 1-20; Lennox, pg. 163-173].

                              But the above argument fails to note that most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function. When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183), and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey].

                              More importantly, this and almost all similar probability-based arguments against evolution suffer from the fallacy of presuming that biological structures such as alpha globin arise by a single all-or-nothing random trial. Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. Probability calculations such as the above, which do not take into account the process by which the structure came to be, are not meaningful and can easily mislead [Musgrave].

                              Along this line, consider snowflakes. Bentley and Humphrey’s book Snow Crystals [Bentley] includes over 2000 high-resolution black-and-white photos of real snowflakes, each with intricate yet highly regular patterns (a few of the Bentley-Humphrey photos are posted at Online article). The chances that one particular structure, with striking near-perfect 6-way symmetry, can form “at random” can be calculated as roughly one part in 10^(2500). Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.

                              ID scholar William Dembski invokes probability and information theory (the mathematical theory of information content in data) in arguments against Darwinism. But knowledgeable scholars who have examined Dembski’s works are not persuaded and have been sharply critical. Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit (a colleague of the present bloggers) and biologist Wesley Elsberry conclude that Dembski’s notion of “complex specified information” is incoherent and unworkable [Shallit]. Biologist Gert Korthof, in a review of Dembski’s book Intelligent Design, concludes that Dembski’s analysis cannot be meaningfully applied to DNA [Korthof]. Mathematician Richard Wein, in a review of Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, characterizes it as “pseudoscientific rhetoric” [Wein].

                              © Copyright Original Source






                              The reference on snow flakes is nonsense, and that has been already discussed. When a crystal bond is formed on a snow flake there are only certain angles or options as to how the bond will occur. The probability only involves which bond possible bond will take place. The probability is the same whether before or after the crystal bond has formed. The estimate of probability is based on the nature of the event and not when it occurred. Your reference discussed many different probabilities depending on the circumstance and none were 100%.


                              It is not as referred to in the peer reviewed competent reference. It is not the timing of individual events that is remotely the case. It is the problem of determining the probability of an all-in-one sequence of the bogus probability for one probability for a long chain of events or the whole chain of events since the beginning of our universe. This is documented as an unethical dishonest way to use probability to justify an ID agenda.

                              What you claim does not even fit the math definition of and how to calculate simple probability.

                              Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+definition&rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS91 7US917&oq=probability+&aqs=chrome.6.69i57j0i433i45 7j0i433l5j0.9750j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8




                              Probability -
                              MATHEMATICS
                              the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
                              "the area under the curve represents probability"

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              From post #42

                              This completely false in any possible sense. There is no legitimate probability calculated in this manner before or after the fact in the manner used by Behe, Koonin and other ID advocates. Actually if the probability is anything close to a reasonable result it would not make any difference how it is applied before or after the fact. The problem remains as the source describes it.

                              Please document [with references] this 'they' you claim does it differently [concerning the specific probability method Behe and Koonin use and apply to their case].
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                                For years you have failed to respond to these critical points.
                                But I have responded, and you have not. Here are the points you need to address:

                                What is P(A|A), if not 1?


                                I have responded to your posts, and your response is to say "that's bogus"! But that is not a refutation of my points.


                                But Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.


                                Yet I insist that they are comparing P(A|A) to P(A), their mistake is in viewing a snowflake after it forms, and then asking what is the probability of forming that snowflake. Which is 100%, given that it is already formed.


                                P(A|A) is the probability of event A, with the realm of possible events being just the event A, which is 100%.

                                Please document [with references] this 'they' you claim does it differently [concerning the specific probability method Behe and Koonin use and apply to their case].
                                Can you quote what you are referring to? I'm not understanding this question.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                                7 responses
                                35 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                                6 responses
                                51 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                                40 responses
                                249 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X