Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86

Thread: p-value testing will never be the same again

  1. #1
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,706
    Amen (Given)
    682
    Amen (Received)
    1480

    p-value testing will never be the same again

    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?
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  2. #2
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,306
    Amen (Given)
    1555
    Amen (Received)
    969
    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 (and not to the number of possible states). In either case, since we are concerned with proving bounds for Dembski’s model, and he uses the scaling constant of 10120, 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. 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.

    Source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/15/liars-figure/


    The old saying, that “figures won’t lie,” is true, without doubt; and the same may be said of letters, marks, and other signs of thought. But the mode in which many use figures, in order to carry a point, has sometimes tempted us to believe that the hasty remark of the Psalmist, if paraphrased thus – “all men” – who deal in statistics “are liars,” – is not far from the truth.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-16-2019 at 06:32 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.

  3. #3
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,236
    Amen (Given)
    419
    Amen (Received)
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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 (and not to the number of possible states). In either case, since we are concerned with proving bounds for Dembski’s model, and he uses the scaling constant of 10120, 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
    "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)

  4. #4
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,306
    Amen (Given)
    1555
    Amen (Received)
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2019 at 04:47 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.

  5. #5
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,306
    Amen (Given)
    1555
    Amen (Received)
    969
    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].

    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



    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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2019 at 05:02 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.

  6. #6
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,236
    Amen (Given)
    419
    Amen (Received)
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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
    "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)

  7. #7
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,706
    Amen (Given)
    682
    Amen (Received)
    1480
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    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.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  8. #8
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,236
    Amen (Given)
    419
    Amen (Received)
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    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
    "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)

  9. #9
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,306
    Amen (Given)
    1555
    Amen (Received)
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #10
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,706
    Amen (Given)
    682
    Amen (Received)
    1480
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    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.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •