Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion BoardThe Critic's Resource on Antievolution

 Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

 Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >
 Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread < Next Oldest | Next Newest >
franky172

Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

PaV still has no idea what P.O. is talking about.

In between his confusion about the "direction we are moving" for rejection regions (what?) is the following:

 Quote Well, as I pointed out in an earlier post, we know the “rules” for proteins: (1) they’re made up of amino acids; (2) each amino acid has a chance of occurring of 1 in 22; (3) specified proteins are of lengths as many as 300 a.a. long.

PaV is evidently unaware that he has proposed a model for the formulation of proteins - namely that they are arranged at random from a language of amino acids.  As faulty of a model of biological reality as this is - it is still a model.  If we want to accept or reject certain outcomes of the model we need to specify a rejection region and compare the probability of an outcome from a set of outcomes that share some property with the outcome we observed and make our inference based on that.

This is (exactly as P.O. has made clear several times in the linked thread) fundamental to rejecting outcomes as statistically improbably - we 1) formulate a model 2) compare the predictions of the model to observations, and 3) accept or reject our hypothesis.

Of course, according to the model proposed by PaV, the probability of any specific set of proteins of given length is equally unlikely, so all possible observed sequences of proteins should fail the "EF" and be considered the product of "design", whether they result in flagella, random gibberish, or the first lines of Hamlet.  What PaV and others have failed to do is define a set, say "proteins that allow locomotion" and find the probability of the model predicting any of the elements of that set (just as we defined a set "sets of D/R's with less than 1 R" in the Caputo case).

Furthermore, ignoring the fact that the model isn't being used properly - the model itself is fundamentally flawed - no biologist would ever suggest that the proposed model is the way that proteins actually form or evolution actually works.  (Which is why it's enlightening to see people finally accepting that of the 30 supposed "unique" protiens in the BF, many of them have already been found to have homologs).

The fact that that thread is now at its 260th post, with P.O. making these points clearly several times, and absolutely no regular at UD seems to be anywhere closer to understanding these basic facts about probability is rather disheartening.

 29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

 Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

 Forum Jump -----------   >All About Antievolution   -----------------------    +- Antievolution, Politics, and the Law    +- Intelligent Design    +- Young-Earth Antievolution    +- Old-Earth Antievolution    +- Collaborations   >Specifically About Intelligent Design   -------------------------------------    +- Intelligent Design News    +- Not a Book to Be Tossed Aside Lightly...    +- Cabbages and Kings    +- The ID-files   >Evolutionary Biology   --------------------    +- News & Events   >From the Panda's Thumb   --------------------------    +- After the Bar Closes...   >The TalkOrigins Archive   -----------------------    +- Feedback

 Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]