# Biostatistician Makes “Own Goal” in Argument Against Dembski

Recently a criticism was leveled against Dembski’s 2005 paper Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence. As is often the case, if you read the criticism carefully, you will realize that, even though he says Dembski is wrong, it turns out that the more exacting answer would favor Dembski’s conclusion more strongly, not less.

In the blog The Dread Tomato Addiction, professional biostatistician Dan Eastwood claims that Dembski’s paper is fundamentally flawed.

Most people use the term “fundamentally flawed” to refer to flaws that are not merely minor mistakes or oversimplifications, but rather to things which are unrecoverable. In this case, it is not a mistake, and, if it is an oversimplification, it is certainly an oversimplification that Dembski made in favor of his critics.

Eastwood criticizes Dembski’s formula for estimating the chance occurrence of an event E adjusted for complexity and opportunity. The formula being criticized is here:

M * N * Phi(T) * P(T|H)

If I ever get the LaTeX plugin installed, the better typeset version will be:

$$M \cdot N \cdot \phi_S(T)\cdot\mathrm{P}(T\vert\mathrm{H})$$

In any case P(T|H) is the base probability of a target, Phi(T) is the descriptive complexity of the target, M is the number of attempters and N is the number of attempts each one makes.

The criticism of Eastwood is that multiplying Phi(T)*P(T|H) by these other factors doesn’t leave us with a probability, because they are merely positive integers, and it leaves open the possibility of a probability greater than one.

However, he seems to be not understanding how proofs are done. Dembski, here, is not giving the actual probability, instead he is giving an upper bound on the probability, which Dembski says explicitly in his paper, using the term “bounded above.” Strangely, Eastwood later realizes this, but continues to criticize despite the fact that his own criticism has been undercut!

In fact, not only is Dembski employing a simple upper bounding technique, it is one of the oldest upper bounding techniques in probability history – Boole’s inequality.

Boole’s inequality simply states that if you have a set of probabilities, the probability of the union of those probabilities is going to be less than their sum. This is exactly what Dembski is doing. Since each chance is Phi(T)*P(T|H), then making M*N attempts means that each of those attempts will be Phi(T)*P(T|H). Therefore, the sum of all of those probabilities will be M*N*P(T|H), which, according to Boole’s inequality, is greater than or equal to the actual probability.

As you can see, using one of the oldest statistics upper bounding methods in history is not an error, it is just statistics. If you were to calculate the probability exactly, I believe it would just be (1 – (1 – Phi(T)*P(T|H))^(M*N)). However, this is much harder to calculate and compare with. That is why Dembski chooses instead to upper bound it – it makes direct comparisons of other quantities much easier.

So, in short, by using an upper-bounding technique, Dembski is actually limiting the power of CSI. The case is actually stronger than what Dembski points out. Eastwood is complaining that Dembski’s paper is “fundamentally flawed” by doing this. However, for the “flaw” that Eastwood points out, the paper’s estimates are actually in Eastwood’s favor already, and if they were corrected they would flow in Dembski’s direction, not Eastwood’s.

I always find it amusing when Darwinists slam Intelligent Design for errors, but if you look at their corrections, the result is just as bad as before, and, in this case, worse. For instance, attempting to criticize Behe, Durrett and Schmidt point out that Behe was wrong, wrong, wrong about his probability estimates of mutations, while simultaneously pointing out that his conclusion (that such events are “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale”) is 100% correct.

If one Darwinist gives an estimate, and another Darwinist later gives a more accurate estimate, that is considered a simple improvement. If an ID’er gives an estimate, and a Darwinist later gives a more accurate estimate, despite it pointing to the same conclusion, that is considered a rebuttal and a disproof.

Hey, if you can’t score goals against your opponent, I guess you can at least score own goals.

## 63 Replies to “Biostatistician Makes “Own Goal” in Argument Against Dembski”

1. 1
Zachriel says:

johnnyb: Phi(T) is the descriptive complexity of the target

If memory serves, Phi is any descriptive language known to the observer. Is that correct?

johnnyb: P(T|H) is the base probability of a target

How do you determine P? What probability distributions are allowed?

2. 2
johnnyb says:

Zachriel – it has been about 8 years since I read the paper in depth, so bear with me a little.

It is correct that the language for phi is non-specific, though I do not know if it works for *any* language. It certainly works for any algorithmic language, since those are all interconvertible by a constant factor, and it relies on the language not being picked post-facto. I do not recall other restrictions.

As to your second question, I do not remember. I would suggest reading the paper.

3. 3
Virgil Cain says:

Earth to Zachriel- P(T|H) needs to be determined by evolutionists and materialists. But they can’t because it seems they don’t even know where to start!

P(T|H)- This is a conditional probability equation with the “H” referring to any and all known necessity and chance hypotheses, including natural selection, drift and neutral construction. That is why evolutionists have to provide it- well that and the fact they don’t have anything else like actual experiments.

4. 4
Me_Think says:

Dan Eastwood apparently was confused by the way Dembski uses Chance Event.:

Edits: After re-reading the final example in the paper (page 23), Dembski shows how this number could be greater than 1. This is in direct contradiction to page 21, where he uses it as a probability. Dembski seems to be confused about his own creation. The point remains that he refers to this as a upper bound on the probability, when it is neither a probability nor an upper bound.

5. 5
Virgil Cain says:

Dan Eastwood is just confused…

6. 6
ellazimm says:

#3 Virgil/Joe

Earth to Zachriel- P(T|H) needs to be determined by evolutionists and materialists. But they can’t because it seems they don’t even know where to start!

Dr Dembski proposed a way to determine when complex specified information was found part of with was the conditional probability P(T|H). How can it be down to people who disagree that his formulation has any meaning to calculate part of his metric? Why would Dr Dembski propose something that depended on work by those opposed to him? What if a biologist published a paper in Nature claiming that P(T|H) = 1, would you believe it?

Also, you’ve gone on record saying that H = 0. Do you still say that?

7. 7
kairosfocus says:

EZ, the simplest way forward is to go to the dual form per logging, which will instantly show that what is being measured is information beyond a threshold. Logically, a threshold of sufficient complexity in the context of esp. functional specificity, that it is maximally implausible that such can be acquired by blind watchmaker processes. Where, information in the case of things like strings is quite readily evaluated, and for functionally specific organisation can be estimated from the string of y/n q’s to set up the description. That is, working with strings is WLOG. It is not hard to see that 500 bits is beyond the credible blind search capacity of the sol system, and 1,000 bits, than the capacity of the observed cosmos. This is equivalent to 72 or 143 ASCII characters of 7 bits each. A very modest quantum relative to the known info content commonly seen in D/RNA and proteins. This BTW is why, in a discussion with GP and PG interacting with the pseudonymous Mathgrrl, I set up simplified models based on thresholds of those sizes some 5 years ago; using a dummy variable to indicate observed functional specificity. Such models are amenable to the sort of work that has given estimates of information based on patterns in protein families. And, note, the issue is not really probabilities, it is search challenge and search resources. For those open to look, it is patent that the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information in the living cell and in life forms is well beyond any reasonable search capacity of the observed cosmos, 100 – 1,000 base pairs and 10 – 100+ mn. Life based on cells and its body plans point strongly to design as best explanation. Which is typically locked out by imposition of Lewontin’s a priori evolutionary materialism. KF

PS: Science is an in-common civilisational enterprise of knowledge advancement, sound investigations, their results and linked analyses are open for all. There is no right to exclude reasonable use of findings and analysis, and in fact the tendency to hoard data and results is an amber warning flag.

8. 8
johnnyb says:

ellazimm –

I think his point was not that we just take someone’s word for it, but that someone needs to give a realistic number to it, and defend it. This is what has people running scared – no one wants to actually even attempt a number on this. ID’ers, using very generous assumptions, attempt calculations. If the critics do not agree with the ID’ers probabilities, the onus is on them to supply reasonable numbers and defend them.

9. 9
ellazimm says:

#8 johnnyb

I think his point was not that we just take someone’s word for it, but that someone needs to give a realistic number to it, and defend it. This is what has people running scared – no one wants to actually even attempt a number on this. ID’ers, using very generous assumptions, attempt calculations. If the critics do not agree with the ID’ers probabilities, the onus is on them to supply reasonable numbers and defend them.

Perhaps that is what he meant but we’ll have to wait to see what he says.

Regardless, I think expecting evolutionary biologists to help with something they find vacuous is not going to get you anywhere. You can’t really expect someone whose work you are attacking to lift a finger in assistance.

I don’t believe anyone is ‘running scared’. I think they just find the whole idea of specified complex information as a characteristic they have no need to invoke.

And I think if ID wants to prove its case it will have to do the work itself.

10. 10
Virgil Cain says:

Dr Dembski proposed a way to determine when complex specified information was found part of with was the conditional probability P(T|H). How can it be down to people who disagree that his formulation has any meaning to calculate part of his metric?

That was explained in the post that you quote-mined:

P(T|H)- This is a conditional probability equation with the “H” referring to any and all known necessity and chance hypotheses, including natural selection, drift and neutral construction. That is why evolutionists have to provide it- well that and the fact they don’t have anything else like actual experiments.

Address that. It isn’t as if this hasn’t all been explained to you many, many times.

Why would Dr Dembski propose something that depended on work by those opposed to him?

What work? That’s the point there isn’t any work just a bunch of proclamations. If they had some actual work then we could dispense with P(T|H) and stick with the results.

What if a biologist published a paper in Nature claiming that P(T|H) = 1, would you believe it?

It depends on the context and the science.

11. 11
Virgil Cain says:

And I think if ID wants to prove its case it will have to do the work itself.

Right and if IDists went into a lab and said that ATP synthase was out of the reach of necessity and chance evolutionists would believe us. 🙄

Look, Jerad, your position makes the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. It is up to you and yours to support that claim with something other than cowardly proclamations.

12. 12
Virgil Cain says:

And I think if ID wants to prove its case it will have to do the work itself.

We have done our work. We have found many biological structures that are irreducibly complex. All you do is deny and handwave the evidence away. And you do that without having anything to support the claims of your position. It’s as if you are oblivious to science and evidence.

13. 13
Gordon Davisson says:

Johnnyb: speaking in as an evolutionist, I agree that Dan’s criticism is invalid. I also haven’t read Dembski’s 2005 paper in a long time, but I don’t recall him ever treating M * N * Phi(T) * P(T|H) as a probability, just as an upper bound on a probability, and as an upper bound it works.

(I do have some issues with the 2005 definition of CSI, but they’re relatively minor — on the level of accounting loopholes. Overall, I think that version is pretty good.)

However, I have to disagree with you when you say “If the critics do not agree with the ID’ers probabilities, the onus is on them to supply reasonable numbers and defend them.” The onus is on the person trying to draw a conclusion from the calculation, and the ID’ers are the only ones trying to draw conclusions from CSI.

If an evolutionist were try to claim “the CSI here is less than one bit, and therefore evolution is a plausible explanation”(*), then you’d be right. But that’s not what’s being claimed; what’s being claimed is that the CSI has not been shown to be more than one bit and that therefore we cannot draw any conclusion from the calculation.

(* BTW, this hypothetical evolutionist argument would be wrong anyway, since a low CSI value does not necessarily rule out intelligent input. IIRC Dembski explicitly says that his method allows false negatives.)

Essentially, any uncertainty in the calculation leads to uncertainty in the result; if you want a useful result, it’s on you to reduce uncertainty in the calculation.

P.S. I tried to comment on Dan’s blog, but apparently blogger won’t let me without setting up a Google+ public profile. Which I’d rather not do. Sorry…

14. 14
ellazimm says:

#10 Virgil/Joe

Address that. It isn’t as if this hasn’t all been explained to you many, many times.

Evolutionary theory deals with how universal descent with modifications ‘works’ all the time. It has no interest or cause to put it into a form for P(T|H).

What work? That’s the point there isn’t any work just a bunch of proclamations. If they had some actual work then we could dispense with P(T|H) and stick with the results.

What do you mean you could dispense with P(T|H)? Why did Dr Dembski put it into his formula? Clearly he thought it was not dispensable.

It depends on the context and the science.

If someone told me P(T|H) = 1 I’d be extremely skeptical.

#11 Joe/Virgil

Look, Jerad, your position makes the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. It is up to you and yours to support that claim with something other than cowardly proclamations.

I’m not informed enough to talk about the generation of ATP synthase. BUT can you compute P(T|H) for it?

#12 Joe

We have done our work. We have found many biological structures that are irreducibly complex. All you do is deny and handwave the evidence away. And you do that without having anything to support the claims of your position. It’s as if you are oblivious to science and evidence.

What does this have to do with P(T|H)?

How about you compute P(T|H) for something of your choice. That would be interesting.

#13 Gordon

The onus is on the person trying to draw a conclusion from the calculation, and the ID’ers are the only ones trying to draw conclusions from CSI.

I quite agree. If ID proponents can’t compute P(T|H) they have to do the work to figure it out.

15. 15
Mung says:

Reminds me of the response I got when I asked someone to write a test to validate their assertion that they had a program that could demonstrate the power of cumulative selection.

16. 16
ellazimm says:

#15 Mung

Reminds me of the response I got when I asked someone to write a test to validate their assertion that they had a program that could demonstrate the power of cumulative selection.

In this case ID proponents are saying they have a metric that they can use to determine when complex, specified information is present but no one seems to be able to calculate the terms of the formula.

Or can you calculate P(T|H) for ATP synthase Mung? Can you calculate P(T|H) for something else?

17. 17
johnnyb says:

Gordon Davisson –

First, you should know that there is a big discussion with Eastwood going on one of the Facebook ID pages. This has been pointed out to him and he is just doubling down on his assertion, which I find strange, as it seems an obvious enough point. I actually waited a while before posting this in case he realized the error of his ways and changed his post. Since he doubled down, I thought it was interesting enough to share.

As to whose onus it is to give an estimate for P(T|H), it depends. I agree that the onus is on the ID’ers to give at least a justified initial estimate. Past that, if someone says that the ID’ers P(T|H) is wrong, wrong, wrong, that requires justification. If someone says that they merely don’t find the justification enough and don’t care to do much else, that is certainly a reasonable path to take.

The question is, why are people being booted out of academia for holding to reasonably justified propositions, and why are otherwise intelligent people (like Eastwood) making irrational claims about probability, not with the goal of coming to a clearer conclusion, but with the goal of shaming anyone who dares to be associated with such reasoning?

If someone wants to doubt someone else’s P(T|H) – great! Go for it! Do it with or without justification – I don’t really care. But when individuals and groups (such as the NCSE) choose to actively target the careers of people and paint anyone who agrees with them as pseudoscientific because of reasonable differences, then one wonders what it is that is causing people to act so irrationally. And when people with masters degrees in statistics choose to not understand how inequalities work in order to preserve their disagreement or show just how bad, bad, bad someone else is, all I can do is wonder what is really going on.

18. 18
johnnyb says:

19. 19
ellazimm says:

#17 johhnyb as in Johnny B Goode? 🙂

As to whose onus it is to give an estimate for P(T|H), it depends. I agree that the onus is on the ID’ers to give at least a justified initial estimate. Past that, if someone says that the ID’ers P(T|H) is wrong, wrong, wrong, that requires justification. If someone says that they merely don’t find the justification enough and don’t care to do much else, that is certainly a reasonable path to take.

I think it is fair to critique the formulation and any estimates or calculations of the terms. As long as the discussion is about the mathematics and the arguments used with proper justification. This is how science and mathematics progress: proposals, scrutiny, critiques, refinement, acceptance, repeat.

As many scientists have paraphrased: Come up with as many ideas as possible knowing that most of them will be wrong. There’s no shame in ‘thinking out loud’ as long as you jettison the stuff that doesn’t work even if it’s close to your heart.

20. 20
Virgil Cain says:

Evolutionary theory deals with how universal descent with modifications ‘works’ all the time. It has no interest or cause to put it into a form for P(T|H).

Nice bluff

What do you mean you could dispense with P(T|H)?

Yes, if there was some scientific way to test the claim then it is not required. It is only required when there isn’t any way to test the claim via experiments.

If someone told me P(T|H) = 1 I’d be extremely skeptical.

Even if the context was forming snowflakes given specific conditions?

I’m not informed enough to talk about the generation of ATP synthase.

You are not informed enough to talk about science, let alone biology.

BUT can you compute P(T|H) for it?

It is still 0 as there aren’t any scientifically valid hypotheses (H) for ATP synthase arising via stochastic processes.

We have done our work. We have found many biological structures that are irreducibly complex. All you do is deny and handwave the evidence away. And you do that without having anything to support the claims of your position. It’s as if you are oblivious to science and evidence.

What does this have to do with P(T|H)?

You said something about us not doing our work. We have done ours, you and yours have failed to do yours. Do try to follow along.

21. 21
Virgil Cain says:

Gordon Davisson @ 13- So you think that it is OK that evolutionists don’t have an explanation for the evolution of ATP synthase via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction, they can’t even provide a testable hypothesis, and that is the fault of ID? Really?

The only reason P(T|H) exists is because evolutionists have failed to come up with something scientifically testable.

And BTW it was Crick who provided the definition of information with respect to biology. So even if CSI didn’t exist as a concept evolutionists would still be unable to explain the existence biological information in Crick’s terms.

22. 22
Virgil Cain says:

In this case ID proponents are saying they have a metric that they can use to determine when complex, specified information is present but no one seems to be able to calculate the terms of the formula.

The only reason said metric exists in the first place is due to the failure of you and yours to be able to scientifically validate the claims of your position, ie the alleged evolutionary theory.

This has been explained to you many, many times and yet you persist with your belligerence. What’s up with that?

23. 23
ellazimm says:

#20 Joe/Virgil

Yes, if there was some scientific way to test the claim then it is not required. It is only required when there isn’t any way to test the claim via experiments.

That doesn’t explain why Dr Dembski included it in his formula. He said nothing about testing any claims in his paper.

Even if the context was forming snowflakes given specific conditions?

P(T|H) is about an occurrence of a pattern T given the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis.

It is still 0 as there aren’t any scientifically valid hypotheses (H) for ATP synthase arising via stochastic processes.

Then Dr Dembski would not have included it in his formula. Clearly he thought it wasn’t zero.

#21 Joe/Virgil

So you think that it is OK that evolutionists don’t have an explanation for the evolution of ATP synthase via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction, they can’t even provide a testable hypothesis, and that is the fault of ID? Really?

We’re talking about the value of P(T|H) not whether or not evolutionary theory can explain ATP synthase.

The only reason P(T|H) exists is because evolutionists have failed to come up with something scientifically testable.

Do you agree with this Gordon?

#22 Joe/Virgil

The only reason said metric exists in the first place is due to the failure of you and yours to be able to scientifically validate the claims of your position, ie the alleged evolutionary theory.

I think Dr Dembski was trying to establish the ability of detecting CSI using some mathematical tests. I think he was doing that because he was trying to make a positive case for ID. You seem to be saying that he did it only because evolutionary theory has failed. Which makes it a designer of the (ever shrinking) gaps argument.

It’s too bad Dr Dembski himself has seemingly abandoned further work on this. I’m sure he could better address why he thought P(T|H) was essential to his formula.

24. 24
Virgil Cain says:

That doesn’t explain why Dr Dembski included it in his formula.

So you are unable to follow along and unable to think. Got it

P(T|H) is about an occurrence of a pattern T given the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis.

And snowflakes apply. Again you are unable to follow along and unable to think.

Then Dr Dembski would not have included it in his formula.

The formula isn’t just for ATP synthase. Try to think for yourself.

We’re talking about the value of P(T|H) not whether or not evolutionary theory can explain ATP synthase.

They are one in the same. Again thanks for proving that you are unable to follow along and unable to think.

The only reason P(T|H) exists is because evolutionists have failed to come up with something scientifically testable.

Do you agree with this Gordon?

The only people who disagree with it are people who are unable to follow along and unable to think.

I think…

All evidence to the contrary, of course.

25. 25
ellazimm says:

#24 Joe

And snowflakes apply. Again you are unable to follow along and unable to think.

Not the existence of snowflakes, just the occurrence of a particular pattern.

The formula isn’t just for ATP synthase. Try to think for yourself.

I didn’t say it did. I only brought that in as an example since you had already mentioned it. If you can compute P(T|H) for something else, (pick a gene, any gene) I’ll listen.

They are one in the same. Again thanks for proving that you are unable to follow along and unable to think.

You just said the formula and P(T|H) was for more than ATP synthase and now you’re saying the value of P(T|H) and having no explanation for the development of ATP synthase are ‘one in the same’. Make up your mind.

The only people who disagree with it are people who are unable to follow along and unable to think.

Let’s see what Gordon says. Assuming he’s still following this thread and (in my opinion) is willing to disagree with you).

P(T|H) is a conditional probability. And Dr Dembski put it in a formula which he described in the following way (page 21 of his 2005 paper):

Moreover, we define the logarithm to the base 2 of M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H) as the context- dependent specified complexity of T given H, the context being S’s context of inquiry:

26. 26
Virgil Cain says:

P(T|H) is a conditional probability.

Yes, I know. It deals with mere specification only.

You just said the formula and P(T|H) was for more than ATP synthase and now you’re saying the value of P(T|H) and having no explanation for the development of ATP synthase are ‘one in the same’.

That is incorrect and proves that you lack reading comprehension skills or you are on an agenda of obfuscation.

The value of P(T|H) is CONTEXT specific, Jerad. And it involves all Darwinian and neo-darwinian processes. Meaning it pertains to this alleged evolutionary theory. So in the CONTEXT of ATP synthase and the inability of your position to explain its existence via your posited mechanisms, they are one in the same.

And I don’t care what Gordon says. It is what he can support that matters. And I have supported my claim on many occasions. And that is the problem with you- this has all be explained many, many times and you are still stuck in denial mode without anything but your handwaving for support.

27. 27
Virgil Cain says:

P(T|H) for ATP synthase is zero. There isn’t anything in the scientific literature that contradicts that. Heck there isn’t anything in said literature explaining what H would be in the case of ATP synthase.

28. 28
ellazimm says:

#26 Joe/Virgil

That is incorrect and proves that you lack reading comprehension skills or you are on an agenda of obfuscation.

The value of P(T|H) is CONTEXT specific, Jerad. And it involves all Darwinian and neo-darwinian processes. Meaning it pertains to this alleged evolutionary theory. So in the CONTEXT of ATP synthase and the inability of your position to explain its existence via your posited mechanisms, they are one in the same.

So you can’t compute a factor of Dr Dembski’s metric because evolutionary theorists have failed to provide you with the data? Then why do you think it’s zero?

And I don’t care what Gordon says. It is what he can support that matters. And I have supported my claim on many occasions. And that is the problem with you- this has all be explained many, many times and you are still stuck in denial mode without anything but your handwaving for support.

Well, I’m interested in what he says. If he can be bothered to comment.

I’m also interested in what the author of this thread, johnnyb thinks. If we’re going to have a debate then everyone is welcome!! And I wouldn’t want to assume that Joe’s position is ID canon if it isn’t. But how do I know unless I hear dissenting views?

#27 Joe/Virgil

P(T|H) for ATP synthase is zero. There isn’t anything in the scientific literature that contradicts that. Heck there isn’t anything in said literature explaining what H would be in the case of ATP synthase.

What H are you using then? Earlier you seemed to say it was up to evolutionary theorists to come up with H otherwise you couldn’t figure out P(T|H) and now you’re saying it’s zero.

Is it zero for other biological systems and events? Remember that P(T|H) is the probability of T given the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis.

29. 29
Virgil Cain says:

So you can’t compute a factor of Dr Dembski’s metric because evolutionary theorists have failed to provide you with the data?

I can compute it. It all depends on the CONTEXT. And evolutionists have failed to support the claims of their position. Don’t blame me

Then why do you think it’s zero?

I told you why it is zero wrt ATP synthase.

But how do I know unless I hear dissenting views?

Why can’t you form a case against my claim? Are you inept and need the help of the group?

Look, Jerad, if something was able to be confirmed or refuted via experimentation then probability calculations are moot. Empirical tests rule science. Probabilities only come into play when those are non-existent, as is the case with ATP synthase. But then again I don’t expect you to understand that.

What H are you using then?

There isn’t one to use and because of that P(T|H) for ATP synthase is zero. As I said you are incapable of following along.

Remember that P(T|H) is the probability of T given the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis.

Remember that if there aren’t any such hypotheses then P(T|H) is zero.

30. 30
ellazimm says:

#28 Joe/Virgil

P(T|H) for ATP synthase is zero. There isn’t anything in the scientific literature that contradicts that. Heck there isn’t anything in said literature explaining what H would be in the case of ATP synthase.

So, because ‘evolutionists’ have failed to come up with the appropriate unguided hypothesis, H, you can’t compute P(T|H) BUT you say it’s zero. That doesn’t make sense. H is a hypothesis. It’s not a number.

Let’s say H is universal common descent with modifications. Show me the calculations you would to to find P(T|H).

I told you why it is zero wrt ATP synthase.

But you just say it, you don’t provide any calculations or mathematical justifications. To determine P(T|H) you must be, at least, assuming an H. What H are you assuming (since you say ‘evolutionists’ haven’t got one).

Why can’t you form a case against my claim? Are you inept and need the help of the group?

Let’s first figure out what you are claiming shall we? If you think the conditional probability of T given H is zero then what H are you using?

Look, Jerad, if something was able to be confirmed or refuted via experimentation then probability calculations are moot. Empirical tests rule science. Probabilities only come into play when those are non-existent, as is the case with ATP synthase. But then again I don’t expect you to understand that.

Well, Dr Dembski proposed his formula a decade ago and you claim that part of that formula, P(T|H), is zero for ATP synthase. But that means you must be working with a particular H to perform the calculations and I’m just asking you what H you are using. You say ‘evolutionists’ haven’t got an H so you must be assuming one, what is it?

There isn’t one to use and because of that P(T|H) for ATP synthase is zero. As I said you are incapable of following along.

Well then can you explain to me how you compute a conditional probability when you say the condition doesn’t exist? IF H doesn’t make sense then P(T|H) doesn’t make sense which is not the same as being zero. Clearly.

Remember that if there aren’t any such hypotheses then P(T|H) is zero.

No, that is not correct. If there is no such hypothesis (which makes you wonder why Dr Dembski put it in his formula) then P(T|H) doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make it equal to zero. Those are two completely different conclusions.

31. 31
Virgil Cain says:

So, because ‘evolutionists’ have failed to come up with the appropriate unguided hypothesis, H, you can’t compute P(T|H) BUT you say it’s zero. That doesn’t make sense. H is a hypothesis. It’s not a number.

If a hypothesis doesn’t exist what value do you assign it? I would say the probability of hitting a target using a non-existent hypothesis is zero.

Let’s say H is universal common descent with modifications. Show me the calculations you would to to find P(T|H).

Show me a testable hypothesis for it.

But you just say it, you don’t provide any calculations or mathematical justifications. To determine P(T|H) you must be, at least, assuming an H. What H are you assuming (since you say ‘evolutionists’ haven’t got one).

I assume that there isn’t any viable H for the materialistic position. And the probability of hitting the target with a hypothesis that doesn’t exist is still zero.

If there is no such hypothesis (which makes you wonder why Dr Dembski put it in his formula) then P(T|H) doesn’t make sense.

I have already been over that, many times. There are times when there are viable H’s. And stop blaming me for your failures. If you had some way of actually testing the claims of your position we wouldn’t need probabilities. And Dembski is granting you too much by even including yours in a probability discussion. So you are right in that for the most part P(T|H) doesn’t make any sense because neither you nor anyone else has anything to get it started.

Nice own goal.

32. 32
ellazimm says:

#31 Joe/Virgil

If a hypothesis doesn’t exist what value do you assign it? I would say the probability of hitting a target using a non-existent hypothesis is zero.

P(T|H) means the probability of T given H. If H doesn’t exist then you cannot assign a probability of T given H. Clearly.

Show me a testable hypothesis for it.

A hypothesis is ah informed guess. Universal descent with modification has some ramifications which include: a genomic tree showing branches of dissent (which we observe), morphological simularities within geographical limitation (bio-geographic data), lines of fossils which uphold the other lines of data, etc.

I assume that there isn’t any viable H for the materialistic position. And the probability of hitting the target with a hypothesis that doesn’t exist is still zero.

That probability is not defined. Meaning it is not computable. Which is different from zero.

I have already been over that, many times. There are times when there are viable H’s. And stop blaming me for your failures. If you had some way of actually testing the claims of your position we wouldn’t need probabilities. And Dembski is granting you too much by even including yours in a probability discussion. So you are right in that for the most part P(T|H) doesn’t make any sense because neither you nor anyone else has anything to get it started.

Nice own goal.

How can H vary? I’m not blaming you, I’m asking you how you can define a conditional probability based on a hypothesis you claim doesn’t exist.

Meanwhile you are claiming that Dr Dembski, who was trying to make a positive case for ID, included a term which doesn’t make sense.

Are you going to tell him or should I/

33. 33
Virgil Cain says:

EZ:

If H doesn’t exist then you cannot assign a probability of T given H. Clearly.

It would be zero, as explained.

Universal descent with modification has some ramifications which include: a genomic tree showing branches of dissent (which we observe), morphological simularities within geographical limitation (bio-geographic data), lines of fossils which uphold the other lines of data, etc.

Universal design with modification has some ramifications which include: a genomic tree showing branches of similarities and differences (which we observe), morphological similarities within geographical limitation (bio-geographic data), lines of fossils which uphold the other lines of data, etc.

Also you need an H pertaining to materialistic processes. You failed to provide one.

How can H vary?

Because T varies, duh.

Meanwhile you are claiming that Dr Dembski, who was trying to make a positive case for ID, included a term which doesn’t make sense.

No, that is only your nonsensical slant on what is going on.

34. 34
ellazimm says:

#33 Virgil Cain ins my name and I served on the Danville train

It would be zero, as explained.

Which still doesn’t make sense. You don’t explain things, you just assert them.

Again: how can you assign a conditional probability given a condition which you claim doesn’t exist? If the condition doesn’t exist then it doesn’t make sense to ask what is the probability of something based on that condition.

Universal design with modification has some ramifications which include: a genomic tree showing branches of similarities and differences (which we observe), morphological similarities within geographical limitation (bio-geographic data), lines of fossils which uphold the other lines of data, etc.

Also you need an H pertaining to materialistic processes. You failed to provide one.

Take all of that and take out a guiding force.

Because T varies, duh.

Uh, no. The whole point is given a T what is the probability of T given H. You don’t seem to understand the mathematics. Pick a T. Then figure out its probability.

No, that is only your nonsensical slant on what is going on.

Well then perhaps you’d like to justify the inclusion of P(T|H), a term which you cannot compute except to claim it’s zero.

If i find the answers lacking then I continue to ask the questions. Thats how science works. And you just seem to parrot nonsensical answers over and over again.

And, I notice, no one from UD is jumping to your defence. Why do you think that is? Is it that you’re wrong but they don’t want to admit it and show there is a split in the ‘movement’?

Or is it that no one in ID really understands these issues and can’t contribute to the discussion?

Let’s see shall we? Let’s see how many editors and contributors to UD weigh in on this matter. Who has the cutzpa I wonder . . .

35. 35
Virgil Cain says:

EZ:

how can you assign a conditional probability given a condition which you claim doesn’t exist?

Again: If a hypothesis doesn’t exist what value do you assign it? I would say the probability of hitting a target using a non-existent hypothesis is zero.

Take all of that and take out a guiding force.

Put in the form of a testable hypothesis. I dare you. I say that because you don’t have any idea how to scientifically test the claim of universal common descent via natural selection, drift and neutral construction.

Because T varies, duh.

Uh, no.

Yes, it does. In one scenario T pertains to ATP synthase. In another T is a bacterial flagellum. In yet another T is CIT transport. It changes.

The whole point is given a T what is the probability of T given H.

That is true and T changes depending on what you are talking about.

Well then perhaps you’d like to justify the inclusion of P(T|H), a term which you cannot compute except to claim it’s zero.

And, I notice, no one from UD is jumping to your defence.

So what? No one else wants to deal with a willfully ignorant troll.

And you have no idea how science works. You have proven that with every post. You don’t even grasp the fact that the only reason P(T|H) exists is that your position doesn’t have anything else- no experiments, no results, just bald proclamations. And it upsets you that it took an IDist to come up with a methodology to test your position’s nonsensical claims. No one on your side has even come up with that!

And that is beyond pathetic.

36. 36
Virgil Cain says:

EZ:

Universal descent with modification has some ramifications which include

That is the problem- no one knows what the ramifications are and no one knows what to modify in order to get universal descent. If you say the DNA gets modified then it is up to you to demonstrate such a thing, ie that DNA getting modified can actually produce the transformations required.

Good luck with that- as I keep telling you your position makes untestable claims. It isn’t science.

37. 37
ellazimm says:

#35 Joe

And you have no idea how science works. You have proven that with every post. You don’t even grasp the fact that the only reason P(T|H) exists is that your position doesn’t have anything else- no experiments, no results, just bald proclamations. And it upsets you that it took an IDist to come up with a methodology to test your position’s nonsensical claims. No one on your side has even come up with that!

Yeah, you’re right. All those biologists who have spent millions of hours over the last century and a half digging up fossils, studying heredity, doing experiments, observing evolutionary processes, refining their theories, arguing with each other and publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals are liars or cheats or delusional. As must be all the funding agencies and the people who take courses taught by those biologists and teachers and most of the populations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, etc. Idiots every single one of them. Too afraid to rock the boat and think for themselves.

But now I’ve seen the light and I can shuck off the mantle of oppression, an evoTard no longer!! I’m going to write Donald Trump and tell him when he’s president he should pick you as his scientific advisor. I know, you might have to give up repairing toasters but just think of the greater good you’ll do!!

38. 38
Virgil Cain says:

EZ bluffer:

All those biologists who have spent millions of hours over the last century and a half digging up fossils, studying heredity, doing experiments, observing evolutionary processes, refining their theories, arguing with each other and publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals are liars or cheats or delusional.

LoL! Not one biologist can tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. Not one knows what makes an organism what it is. All biologists are specialists, meaning they specialize in a specific part of biology.

There aren’t any results in peer-review that support the evolution of ATP synthase via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. You are just a gullible chump who refuses to actually take a look at the evidence- not that you could understand the evidence…

39. 39
ellazimm says:

#38 Joe, science god

LoL! Not one biologist can tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. Not one knows what makes an organism what it is. All biologists are specialists, meaning they specialize in a specific part of biology.

True, true. They should all be taught how to do real science eh? Look at the ‘big picture’, put the pieces together and see it’s all a sham.

There aren’t any results in peer-review that support the evolution of ATP synthase via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. You are just a gullible chump who refuses to actually take a look at the evidence- not that you could understand the evidence…

I’m not a chump any more! I get it now! After swallowing lies upon lies upon lies, staring into a cloudy mirror, I know see clearly!!

Hard to believe whole journals, university departments, textbooks, research funding agencies are all just playing the money game. Wow. My mind boggles at the thought. I bet that judge in Pennsylvania got paid off real well in 2005 eh? He just completely bought the evoTards’ side and completely dissed the IDers.

40. 40
Mung says:

Or can you calculate P(T|H) for ATP synthase Mung? Can you calculate P(T|H) for something else?

What’s P(T|H)?

41. 41

Greetings UD! If I’d known there was a party I would have brought some beer. 🙂

I will respond with some additional comments, but my time today and Saturday is very limited.

Regards,
Dan Eastwood

42. 42
ellazimm says:

#40 Mung

What’s P(T|H)?

I see the court jester hasn’t abandoned us.

43. 43
Me_Think says:

In case people are not following FB, here’s Dan’s comment:

I understand Boole’s inequality, but it’s application here is unnecessary, because P[T|H] is already an upper bound. If you want to insist that Dembski is applying Boole’s inequality here, fine, but then I get to call this another error because Dembski didn’t use a “<=" symbol or state his methodology – which are perfectly reasonably requirement to ask of a PhD mathematician. smile emoticon

Also, so you do not forget, please explain how D(T) is not the expectation of a binomial random variable

44. 44
Virgil Cain says:

Geez you would figure that with all of those resources Jerad/ EZ would be able to find some scientific support for the evolution of ATP synthase via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. Yet he can’t. And that is very telling.

Heck he can’t even find this alleged theory of evolution.

45. 45
Mung says:

I see the court jester hasn’t abandoned us.

46. 46
ellazimm says:

#44 Virg

Geez you would figure that with all of those resources Jerad/ EZ would be able to find some scientific support for the evolution of ATP synthase via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. Yet he can’t. And that is very telling.

Heck he can’t even find this alleged theory of evolution.

Of course I can’t find those things because you were right all along! They don’t exist!!

Pretty funny when you think about all those scientists spending all those decades researching and publishing stuff about something that isn’t true. Boy won’t they feel stupid when the whole fake evo-ediface finally comes crashing down!! There’s gonna be some explaining to do then eh? Good thing you’ve got your blog so all the evotards know where to go when the axe falls. Man that’s gonna be good. People will be burning huge piles of Dawkins’ books and textbooks and journals. Heck we’re talking whole libraries filled with evil evo crap that’ll have to be purged. People like you and Dr Berlinski and Dr Dembski and Spetner are gonna be rock and roll stars. And Dr Behe . . . he can run the whole show. He’s got tenure and everything.

Bring it on!! Get the tar and feathers boys! Time to kick some evo-butt.

47. 47
ellazimm says:

#45 Mungus

Nope, don’t need one now. I HAVE seen the light. I’m throwing off my shackles of Darwin and I’m basking in the amazing vast and deadly designed universe. I hope an asteroid doesn’t hit before the revolution, that would be a real bummer.

48. 48
hrun0815 says:

Re #46:

EZ, I think this type of sarcasm is completely lost on the crowd here. It simply describes relatively accurately their reality.

49. 49
Virgil Cain says:

Pretty funny when you think about all those scientists spending all those decades researching and publishing stuff about something that isn’t true.

What’s pretty funny is that no one can find such a thing pertaining to the evolution of ATP synthase via ns, drift and/ or neutral construction.

What else is pretty funny, and predictable, is the way evos act when their nonsense is exposed.

50. 50
Virgil Cain says:

Also it seems that EZ Jerad is conflating the fact that biologists do understand biology and how systems and subsystems function with knowing how natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction produced them.

Yes EZJ, biologists write quite a few papers on how biological systems and subsystems function. Yes they understand biology very well. But unfortunately that is very different from knowing how those systems arose. You seem to confuse the two.

51. 51
ellazimm says:

#49 VC

What’s pretty funny is that no one can find such a thing pertaining to the evolution of ATP synthase via ns, drift and/ or neutral construction.

What else is pretty funny, and predictable, is the way evos act when their nonsense is exposed.

Absolutely. Can’t have the leaks in the dam exposed. People might start poking around, broadening the holes and then the whole shebang might come crashing down.

Also it seems that EZ Jerad is conflating the fact that biologists do understand biology and how systems and subsystems function with knowing how natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction produced them.

Yes EZJ, biologists write quite a few papers on how biological systems and subsystems function. Yes they understand biology very well. But unfortunately that is very different from knowing how those systems arose. You seem to confuse the two.

But they keep saying: nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Evolution explains everything.

How a thing or a system comes into being not only tells you something about it purpose but how it’s suppose to function yes? A designed system will have tolerances and redundancies built into it whereas a system that arose through random, unguided mucking about is always right on the edge of breaking/failing. Yes? If the biologists really understood the systems then they would be able to tell how fragile or robust they are which would be an indication of design or not. Yes?

When you design a complicated system you can plan for failures. If there ain’t nobody in the driver seat you go over a cliff very easily. And you can see that in the system, surely.

52. 52
velikovskys says:

Virgil:
Also it seems that EZ Jerad is conflating the fact that biologists do understand biology and how systems and subsystems function with knowing how natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction produced them.

Then go ahead, specifically how did design produce those systems?

53. 53
Zachriel says:

velikovskys: Then go ahead, specifically how did design produce those systems?

It starts like a baby does, with a twinkle in the eye.

That’s followed by some sort of mechanical action, then something something …

Voilà!

54. 54
velikovskys says:

Voilà, a bacteria flagellum? That is just icky.

55. 55
Roy says:

I would say the probability of hitting a target using a non-existent hypothesis is zero.

So the probability of an archer hitting a target if [non-existent hypothesis] is zero?

The probability of rolling 7 on two dice if [non-existent hypothesis] is zero?

The probability of the sun rising tomorrow if [non-existent hypothesis] is zero?

And of course:

The probability of the sun rising tomorrow if [non-existent hypothesis concerning the origin of ATP] is zero?

You are not only wrong, but you are trivially so, and your inability to see this renders any similar opinion you hold irrelevant.

Mathematics teacher: What is the probability of two dice rolling a total of seven? Anyone? Yes Virgil?
Young Virgil: Do you have a hypothesis concerning the colour of the dice?
Mathematics teacher: No Virgil, I don’t. It doesn’t matter what colour the dice are.
Young Virgil: Then the answer is zero. If P(T) is the probability of two dice rolling 7, and P(H) is the probability of the dice being a certain colour, then P(T|H) is the probability of the dice rolling 7 if they are that colour. But you haven’t defined H, so P(T|H) is zero, and so two dice of which the colour options are undefined never roll 7.

Less young Virgil: But i can’t have crapped out! You have refused to provide a hypothesis regarding the colour distribution of your dice, so these dice cannot roll 7! This crapshoot is crooked! Give me my money back!
Pit-boss: Really? then the probability of you ever rolling your mark is also zero. [aside] Boys, eject this bum.
Less young Virgil: D’oh! I didn’t think of that…

56. 56
Virgil Cain says:

But they keep saying: nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Actually only one person has said that and he didn’t clarify what he meant by that. ID is not anti-evolution and even YECs are OK with a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution.

How a thing or a system comes into being not only tells you something about it purpose but how it’s suppose to function yes?

So auto mechanics have to know the history of the automobile before they can become good mechanics? Sounds stupid to me.

But anyway I see you have once again failed to say how to test the claims of your position. You seem happy to bluff your way through this discussion, all the while exposing your ignorance of science.

Strange

57. 57
Virgil Cain says:

velikovskys:

Then go ahead, specifically how did design produce those systems?

Non-sequitur

58. 58
Virgil Cain says:

Roy:

So the probability of an archer hitting a target if [non-existent hypothesis] is zero?

An archer shooting at a target is part of the hypothesis. The skill of said archer is also factored in. The hypothesis is inherent in the actions.

Obviously you are just a confused jerk on an agenda to further distract from the fact that your position has nothing to offer.

Nice flailure…

59. 59
Virgil Cain says:

No one knows how ATP synthase could have arisen via stochastic processes and yet scientists have figured out what it looks like and how it works.

60. 60
ellazimm says:

#56 Virg

Actually only one person has said that and he didn’t clarify what he meant by that. ID is not anti-evolution and even YECs are OK with a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution.

But let’s be honest, they all really believe that don’t they? Sure the alleles change over time but the real question is how? Are the mutations really random?

So auto mechanics have to know the history of the automobile before they can become good mechanics? Sounds stupid to me.

If you knew a system was designed then you would look at it differently wouldn’t you? You’d figure that every single bit and piece was put there for a reason instead of just left lying around as a leftover. C’mon, it would make a big difference. A mechanic dealing with a randomly derived system would tend to assume that there’d be lots of un-needed dross in the system. “If it doesn’t look like it has a purpose then chuck it” as opposed to someone who could clearly see the system was designed. For a purpose.

But anyway I see you have once again failed to say how to test the claims of your position. You seem happy to bluff your way through this discussion, all the while exposing your ignorance of science.

I’m not trying anymore am I? I’m conceding.

An archer shooting at a target is part of the hypothesis. The skill of said archer is also factored in. The hypothesis is inherent in the actions.

Exactly! Because the probability depends on the skill of the archer. The conditions of wind and weight (of the arrow), etc are accounted for by the assumed ability of the archer. You don’t need to state it.

Obviously you are just a confused jerk on an agenda to further distract from the fact that your position has nothing to offer.

Give ’em hell Joe!!

No one knows how ATP synthase could have arisen via stochastic processes and yet scientists have figured out what it looks like and how it works.

Absolutely correct!! And they never will!! Because their base assumption is garbage. ATP synthase is clearly designed and that is done and dusted.

61. 61
Virgil Cain says:

I’m not trying anymore am I?

The point is you couldn’t try because you have nothing. And your posts prove that.

Thank you

62. 62
ellazimm says:

#61 VC

The point is you couldn’t try because you have nothing. And your posts prove that.

I’m not arguing with you so why do you keep bringing it up?

63. 63
Virgil Cain says:

You were never arguing, EZ Jerad. All you do is proclaim and bluff.