p-value testing will never be the same again

[Roy]

Source: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4/BIO-C.2018.4

We then review statistical hypothesis testing and the level-α property, formally reducing p-value testing to a form of specified complexity model hypothesis testing.

© Copyright Original Source

Who knew that statistical hypothesis testing was looking for intelligent design?

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4/BIO-C.2018.4

Remark. It should be noted that although Landman claims [8] that the number of possible states should be used as the replicational resources (scaling constant) r rather than the number of possible events, it should be clear that such a claim is mistaken, since the replicational resources represent the number of attempts a system is given to produce a given result (if every operation on every bit were a sampling attempt), which corresponds to the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang

© Copyright Original Source

If one understands statistics the efforts of this paper is 'front loaded' statistically to get the desired result. More comments may follow. Also basically neglects that the laws of nature constrains the outcome of each cause and effect event, and cannot be statistically projected as simply the probability of 'the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang.'

I believe that Landman referred to this limitation as 'the number of possible states.' I comment with caution on Landman, because I lack his full reference. I may word this more completely as the limitations of the possible states of the outcome of each cause and effect outcome constrained by the laws of nature.

I believe they have tried this before.

[lee_merrill]

Source: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4/BIO-C.2018.4

Remark. It should be noted that although Landman claims [8] that the number of possible states should be used as the replicational resources (scaling constant) r rather than the number of possible events, it should be clear that such a claim is mistaken, since the replicational resources represent the number of attempts a system is given to produce a given result (if every operation on every bit were a sampling attempt), which corresponds to the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang ¹²⁰, we do so here as well.

© Copyright Original Source

If one understands statistics the efforts of this paper is 'front loaded' statistically to get the desired result.

Well, how so?

Also basically neglects that the laws of nature constrains the outcome of each cause and effect event, and cannot be statistically projected as simply the probability of 'the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang.'

But constraining the events would reduce this probability, correct?

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, how so?


But constraining the events would reduce this probability, correct?

Blessings,
Lee

No, it would greatly increase the probability, because the outcome of each cause and effect relationship would be constrained by the Laws of Nature constraining the possible outcomes.

In the proper use of statistics and probability it is the standard process to constrain the possible variables in the research design to increase the probability that the result will will falsify the hypothesis.

I seriously condemn this irresponsible use of statistics and probability to justify an agenda, and I will provide other references that object to this misuse.

The paper classical misuses Dempski's argument and methods to justify Dempski's argument.

[shunyadragon]

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,

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

Note: What is referred to 'some element of chance' is a fractal relationship in the variability of the outcome of each event in the formation of the snowflake, which is basically that same throughout the nature of cause and effect outcomes.

[lee_merrill]

No, it would greatly increase the probability, because the outcome of each cause and effect relationship would be constrained by the Laws of Nature constraining the possible outcomes.

In the proper use of statistics and probability it is the standard process to constrain the possible variables in the research design to increase the probability that the result will will falsify the hypothesis.

Well, constraining the set of events is not the same as constraining possible variables, and variables are constrained to reduce extraneous effects that are not of interest, not to increase the probability.

And snowflakes are not designed because this is viewing the probability of a random arrangement after the fact. The probability of any given arrangement (of snowflakes, of taillights on a highway, of amino acid chains) after it happens is 100%.

Blessings,
Lee

[Roy]

And snowflakes are not designed because this is viewing the probability of a random arrangement after the fact. The probability of any given arrangement (of snowflakes, of taillights on a highway, of amino acid chains) after it happens is 100%.

So proteins and genomes aren't designed either.

[lee_merrill]

So proteins and genomes aren't designed either.

No, if the focus is on an event before it happens, then the probability can vary from 100%. For example, if you pick one snowflake pattern, and then look for that to occur, then the probability is 10²⁵⁰⁰ (according to their calculations).

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

No, if the focus is on an event before it happens, then the probability can vary from 100%. For example, if you pick one snowflake pattern, and then look for that to occur, then the probability is 10²⁵⁰⁰ (according to their calculations).

Blessings,
Lee

More bizzaro calculations that do not make any sense as referenced. Not even worth responding to. The referenced paper was clear and specific.

[Roy]

And snowflakes are not designed because this is viewing the probability of a random arrangement after the fact. The probability of any given arrangement (of snowflakes, of taillights on a highway, of amino acid chains) after it happens is 100%.

So proteins and genomes aren't designed either.

No, if the focus is on an event before it happens, then the probability can vary from 100%. For example, if you pick one snowflake pattern, and then look for that to occur, then the probability is 10²⁵⁰⁰ (according to their calculations).

Proteins and genomes have already happened. No-one is picking a DNA sequence and looking for it to occur.* Proteins and genomes aren't designed.

*apart from dishonest creationists and IDers who pretend this is happening.

[shunyadragon]

No, if the focus is on an event before it happens, then the probability can vary from 100%. For example, if you pick one snowflake pattern, and then look for that to occur, then the probability is 10²⁵⁰⁰ (according to their calculations).

Blessings,
Lee

That probability in not relevant, which is the subject of the reference. The meaningful point of the reference is that the meaningful probability is of each cause and effect outcome event constrained natural law and the environment, and not in this case, one end product. Like snow flakes not all universes, galaxies, suns, solar systems, nor planets are exactly alike, but the Laws of Nature will determine the outcome of each cause and effect in the history of our universe, and all possible universes will be like universes, galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets. The same is true of clouds, no two clouds will every be exactly alike, but all clouds will look like clouds.

[lee_merrill]

Proteins and genomes have already happened. No-one is picking a DNA sequence and looking for it to occur.

Well here, the probability of a coin flip coming up heads is 50% if you view the coin flip before the event occurs. Viewing the event after the coin flip, the probability is 100% that it came up the way it did. So you can view an event such as protein production before the event occurred, and ask what that probability would be.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The same is true of clouds, no two clouds will every be exactly alike, but all clouds will look like clouds.

So we can ask what the probability is of a natural process producing a given protein, for instance.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

So we can ask what the probability is of a natural process producing a given protein, for instance.

Blessings,
Lee

100%

[lee_merrill]

100%

Surely not, what natural process will generate a given protein with 100% certainty?

Blessings,
Lee